DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant Arguments and Remarks filed on April 20, 2026.
Amendments filed on April 20, 2026 have been acknowledged and considered.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 have been amended
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Remarks, filed April 20, 2026, has been fully considered and entered.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 have been amended. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent claim. In light of Applicant amendments, the objection to the of the abstract of the disclosure has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, April 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argues that the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the amended claim limitations “based on the attribute information and the information corresponding to the category of the image, generate text to be input to the text input portion.”
Response to Argument 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jeong-Kim still teaches the argued-amended new claim limitations. Jeong paragraphs [0068-0071, 0103-0107] discloses acquiring recognition information by extracting at least one visual object from the selected image and acquiring “character information corresponding to the recognition information” where the character information is “at least one keyword (or text) that can be used for the image-based retrieval service.”, where the resources used by image-based retrieval service include category database for classifying images. Jeong [0081] further teaches, through its Content Management Hub (CMH) and vision agent, classifying the acquired image into category among a plurality of categories as “furniture” and a sub-category such as “chair/desk/stand/lamp”).
Thus, Jeong obtains/generate the text “corresponding to” a recognized category of the image (e.g. information corresponding to a category of the image).
Amended claims 1, 19 and 20 require the text to be generated “based on the attribute information and the information corresponding to the category of the image”. Jeong teaches the text/keyword corresponding to the category of the image (e.g. information corresponding to the category), and Kim teaches the conforming of that text to the attribute information of the destination text-input portion (e.g. attribute information). Jeong [0105] explicitly teaches “generate the recognition information” from which it acquires the character information, and Kim [0066-0067] “generate the data of the first application” in a format/attribute corresponding to the second application. See rejection below.
Therefore, the Examiner has determined that this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 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.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 14-17 are 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 was amended and no longer recites the bare term “the information. The dependent claims 3-4, 7, 9-10 and 14-17 repeatedly recite “the information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear. It is unclear whether “the information” in these claims refers to the “information corresponding to a category of the image” recited in claim 1, or to some other recited information. Examiner request clarification from Applicant. “the information” lack proper antecedent basis and render the scope of dependent claims unclear.
Claim 16 introduces “a plurality of images including another image”, and subsequently recites “identify second text for the other image” and “the category of the other image”. The term “the other image” does not match the introduced term “another image” creating ambiguity as to whether the “other image” refers to “another image” or to a further recited image. “the other image” lack proper antecedent basis and render the scope of dependent claims unclear.
Claims 6 and 11 have been amended to now recite images “stored in the first application”. It is unclear what it means for an image to be stored in an application. The claim does not make clear whether “stored in the first application” means stored in a storage region allocated to the application, stored in a memory accessible to the application, displayed by the application or some other relationship. The Specification describes images stored in the electronic device, not in an application. An application is an executable program, whereas images are data stored in a memory of the electronic device. The metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20190369825 A1), in view of Kim (US Patent Publication No. US 20160065648 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong teaches an electronic device comprising: a display; memory comprising one or more storage media storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors comprising processing circuitry, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: display a first execution screen of a first application including an image, via the display, (See Jeong [0005] “an electronic device comprises a memory, a display, and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to… identify one or more images stored in the memory… recognize at least a portion of content included in a selected image among the some of the one or more images, provide character information to the application based on the recognized at least the portion of the content as a portion of the user input through the input unit.” See also Jeong [0006, 0101] “when executing the instructions display a user interface [e.g. first execution screen] of an application [e.g. first application]… display one or more thumbnail images for representing the one or more images [Thus, including an image, via the display] within the display area of the virtual keyboard… the input unit may be displayed along with the user interface of the application on the basis of detection of generation of a specified or designated event while the application is executed or the user interface of the application is displayed.”
obtain information corresponding to a category of the image, (See Jeong [0104-0106, 0138] “the processor 120 may display at least some images in association with the input unit by displaying at least some images within the display area of the input unit… the processor 120 may acquire recognition information of at least a portion of the content included in the selected image… the character information may be at least one keyword (or text) that can be used for the image-based retrieval service in order to retrieve other information… the processor 120 may classify the image file and a first image file of the image files as a first category , among a plurality of categories, and classify the image file and a second image file of the image files as a second category, among the plurality of categories. [Thus, obtain information corresponding to a category of the image]”)
identify a user input received with respect to the first execution screen for executing a second application, (See Jeong [0006, 0113] “display a designated object and a plurality of keys indicating a plurality of characters within a display area of a virtual keyboard, at least a portion of which is superimposed on a user interface [e.g. first execution screen] in response to identification of an input performed on a text-input portion included in the user interface, identify one or more images related to an application among a plurality of applications stored in the electronic device, based at least on identification of the input [Thus, identify a user input] performed [Thus, received] on the designated object… the application [e.g. first application] may be an application distinct from another application [e.g. second application] used to control a virtual keyboard. According to certain embodiments, the application may be an application that can interwork [Thus, executing] with the other application [e.g. second application].” See also Jeong [0095] “based on reception of input performed on a designated object included in a virtual keyboard… displayed along with the first user interface of a first application, provide content retrieved… display a second thumbnail image for representing a second image… along with a second user interface… of a second application [Thus, for executing a second application], distinct from the first application”)
Jeong lacks details regarding a user input causing execution of a second application.
However, Kim teaches identify a user input received with respect to the first execution screen for executing a second application in more details. (See Kim abstract, [0010] “identifying data of a first application, determining at least one second application in response to a user event [e.g. user input] and identifying an attribute of each of the at least one second application, and processing the data of the first application based on the attributes of the each of the at least one second application to execute a function related to at least one second application… The electronic device includes an input unit configured to receive a user event [e.g. user input]” See also Kim [0063] “the data transferal control module 170 may transfer the data of the first application to the second application in response to a user event which shifts a first application window to a predetermined position of a second application window.”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong; which identifies an input portion within an application [e.g. first application] to identify data related to an application [e.g. second application] among a plurality of applications, where an application that can interwork/transfer information with other applications, to incorporate the teachings of Kim which determine at least one second application in response to the user event, identifying an attribute of each of the at least one second application and transferring data between applications.
One would be motivated to do so to improve user experience [Kim 0011], Thus, removes the need for manually re-enter data, significantly increasing convenience and efficiency.
Jeong further in view of Kim, [hereinafter Jeong-Kim] additionally disclose identify attribute information of a text input portion included in a second execution screen of the second application, (See Kim [0096] “the electronic device 101 may determine data of the second application in response to the user event, and may identify the attribute of the determined data [e.g. identify attribute information of a text input portion] of the second application. For example, the electronic device 101 may receive a user event which shifts the first application window to data displayed on the second application window [Thus, in a user interface of the second software application]. The electronic device 101 may identify the attribute (e.g., information included in the data) of the data.” See also Kim [0117-0118] “the electronic device 101 may determine the function related to the second application in response to the user event and may identify the attribute of the determined function related to the second application. For example, the electronic device 101 may receive a user event which shifts the first application window to a search application icon. The electronic device 101 may execute a search engine in response to the user event and may identify information on an instruction of a performance of the search function… when the electronic device 101 executes the search engine in response to the user event and identifies the information on the instruction of the performance of the search function, the electronic device 101 may perform a search through a search word [e.g. text input portion] based on a text included in the data of the first application.”)
Jeong also teaches identify attribute information of a text input portion included in a second execution screen of the second application. (See Jeong [0086, 0106] “the processor may be configured to identify other character information provided by the application through the input unit [e.g. user interface of the second software application] and store the other character information as at least a portion of attribute information [i.e. identify attribute information of a text input portion] of the selected image… the character information may be at least one keyword (or text) that can be used for the image-based retrieval service in order to retrieve other information.”)
based on the attribute information and the information corresponding to the category of the image, generate text to be input to the text input portion, and (See Jeong [0086, 0105-0107] “store the other character information as at least a portion of attribute information of the selected image… the processor 120 may extract at least one visual object from the selected image, identify at least one feature point from at least one extracted visual object, and generate the recognition information on the basis of the at least one feature point so as to acquire the recognition information… the processor 120 may acquire character information [Thus, based on attribute information] corresponding to the recognition information on the basis of at least the acquisition. According to certain embodiments, the character information may be at least one keyword (or text) [Thus, generate text] that can be used for the image-based retrieval service [Thus, to be input] in order to retrieve other information” See also Jeong [0057, 0068-0071, 0138] “The database manager 211, for example, may generate, search, or change a database to be used by the application 146… the database 293 may be used to store resources for providing the image-based retrieval service through interworking between the virtual keyboard application 291 and each of the plurality of applications 292 [e.g. to be input to the text input portion]. For example, the database 293 may include at least one of a screenshot image, a re-processed image including associated information (described below) mapped to the screenshot image, and a category database [Thus, based on information corresponding to the category of the image] for classifying the screenshot image and the re-processed image… the processor 120 may classify the image file and a first image file or the image files as a first category, among a plurality of categories.” [Thus, the generated text (character information) corresponds to the recognized category of the image])
display, via the display, the text input portion to which the text is input, together with the image, in the second execution screen displayed in response to the user input. (See Jeong [0006] “display one or more thumbnail images for representing the one or more images within the display area of the virtual keyboard, wherein selection of a selected one of the one or more thumbnail images causes a query based on the selected one of the one or more thumbnail images.” See also Jeong Fig. 4, [0107] “The processor 120 may display the text-input portion 405 including the text 444 selected by the input 442 in response to reception of the input 442 and display at least one piece of multimedia content 446 [e.g. image] retrieved on the basis of the text 444 [e.g. text] within the user interface [e.g. second execution screen] 400. [Thus, the text input portion to which the text is input, together with the image, in the second execution screen displayed in response to the user input”)
Regarding claim 2, Jeong-Kim teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the attribute information includes data indicating that the text input portion is associated with a third application, the third application different from the first application and the second application, (See Kim [0056] “the one or more application 134 may include a short message service (SMS)/multimedia message service (MMS) application, an e-mail application, a calendar application, an alarm application, a health care application” See also Kim [0135] “The determining of at least one second application [e.g. a third application different from the first application and the second application]… based on an execution state attribute [e.g. attribute information] of the executed applications” See also Kim [0117-0118] “the electronic device 101 may receive a user event which shifts the first application window to a search application icon. The electronic device 101 may execute a search engine in response to the user event… the electronic device 101 may execute the function related to the second application [e.g. third application] using the data of the first application and based on the attribute of the function related to the selected second application [Thus, data indicating that the text input portion is associated with a third software application]. For example, when the electronic device 101 executes the search engine in response to the user event and identifies the information on the instruction of the performance of the search function, the electronic device 101 may perform a search through a search word [e.g. text input portion] based on a text included in the data of the first application.”)
wherein the text is generated by searching for, using the data, a database for the third application. (See Jeong [0057, 0068-0071, 0118] “The database manager 211, for example, may generate, search, or change a database to be used by the application 146… the electronic device 101 may include memory storing a virtual keyboard application 291 used by the processor 120, a plurality of applications 292 distinct from the virtual keyboard application 291, a database 293 [Thus, a database stored in a storage region]… The virtual keyboard application 291 may interwork with a recommended word database stored in the memory 130. The recommended word database may provide a predicted word (or text) [Thus, text is generated by searching] when using the virtual keyboard application 291… the word may include text related to the image-based retrieval service described with reference to the drawings from FIG. 3A… the database 293 may be used to store resources for providing the image-based retrieval service through interworking between the virtual keyboard application 291 and each of the plurality of applications 292 [e.g. third application]”)
Regarding claim 4, Jeong-Kim teaches all claim limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: based on the attribute information and the information, identify, from among a plurality of visual objects, a visual object; and (See Jeong [0085-0086, 0103-0105] “the processor may be configured to… acquire recognition information generated by recognizing at least a portion of content included in an image selected according to a designated input among at least some images, acquire character information corresponding to the recognition information, based at least on the acquisition, and provide the character information [Thus, based on the attribute information] to the application as at least a portion of the user input through the input unit… store the other character information as at least a portion of attribute information of the selected image… the processor 120 may extract at least one visual object from the selected image, identify at least one feature point from at least one extracted visual object, and generate the recognition information on the basis of the at least one feature point so as to acquire the recognition information… the information [e.g. the information] on the selected image transmitted by the processor 120 may include information on at least one visual object extracted from the selected image. [Thus, identify, from among a plurality of visual objects, a visual object]”)
display, via the display, in the second execution screen, together with the image and the text input portion that includes the text, the visual object. (See Jeon [0095, 0106-0107] “display a first thumbnail image for representing a first image among a plurality of images stored in the electronic device along with a first user interface… provide content [e.g. visual object] retrieved based at least on the first image within the first user interface… the processor 120 may acquire character information corresponding to the recognition information on the basis of at least the acquisition… character information may be at least one keyword (or text) that can be used for the image-based retrieval service in order to retrieve other information… the processor 120 may provide the character information to the application through the input unit as at least a portion of the user input. According to certain embodiments, the processor 120 may provide the character information to the application by inputting (or inserting) the character information into the character input portion included in the user interface [e.g. second execution screen] of the application. [Thus, display, via the display, in the second execution screen, with the image and the text input portion that includes the text, the visual object]”)
Regarding claim 5, Jeong-Kim teaches all claim limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: display, via the display, in a first execution screen, the image, with a user interface (UI) object for executing a function provided via a framework; (See Jeong Fig. 4, [0115] “The processor 120 may display a virtual keyboard 410… The virtual keyboard 410 may include a plurality of keys indicating a plurality of characters and a designated object 420. The designated object 420 [e.g. user interface (UI) object] may be referred to as a key, a button, or an item for loading a visual keyboard in that the designated object 420 provides the image-based retrieval service [e.g. for executing a function provided via a framework] within the display area of the virtual keyboard 410.” See also Jeong [0102] “the designated object may be an object for providing the image-based retrieval service within the user interface of the application displayed along with the user input.” See also Jeong [0068-0071] “Referring to FIG. 2B… the database 293 may be used to store resources for providing the image-based retrieval service through interworking [Thus, the framework being the interworking architecture] between the virtual keyboard application 291 and each of the plurality of applications 292.”
Examiner notes that “a framework” is a very broad term not specially defined in the Specification. The plain meaning is a basic structure of ideas or steps that provide support to a process, and Jeong’s designated object that loads the image-based retrieval service provided by the interworking virtual keyboard application with the plurality of applications and database is reasonably interpreted as a UI object for executing a function provided via a framework.)
identify an input on the UI object as the user input; (See Jeong [0118] “the processor 120 may receive input 425 for the designated object 420 while the plurality of keys and the designated object 420 are displayed within the display area of the virtual keyboard 410. In response to reception of the input 425, the processor 120 may identify the one or more images related to the application”)
using the second application executed through the function in response to the input, identify the attribute information; and using the second application, generate the text. (See Kim [0094-0097] “FIG. 8 is a flowchart [e.g. framework] illustrating a method of executing a function related to an application [e.g. second application] of an electronic device… the electronic device 101 may identify the data of the first application. For example, the electronic device 101 may execute the first application, and may generate various pieces of data in the executed first application… the electronic device 101 may receive a user event [e.g. input] which shifts the first application window [Thus, in response to the input] to data displayed on the second application window. The electronic device 101 may identify the attribute (e.g., information included in the data) of the data… the electronic device 101 may execute the function related to the second application [e.g. executed through the function in response to the input] using the data of the first application and based on the identified attribute of the data of the second application [Thus, using the second application]. For example, when the second application is a document editing application and the attribute of data of the second application, which is selected by the user event, is information a character font, the electronic device 101 may display a text included in the data of the first application on a document editing window of the document editing application in a character font size corresponding to the selected data. [Thus, using the second application, generate the text]”)
Regarding claim 7, Jeong-Kim teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: display, via the display, in the first execution screen, together with the image, another text; and (See Jeong [0164] “the processor 120 may display at least one acquired piece of text along with the one or more thumbnail images… The at least one acquired piece of text may be displayed in the vicinity of the text-input portion within the user interface [e.g. first execution screen] of the application being executed… The at least one piece of text 755 may include text 760, text 762, text 764, text 766, text 768, and text 770. The text 760, the text 762, the text 764, the text 766, the text 768, and the text 770 [Thus, another text]”)
in response to the user input being identified while displaying the another text together with the image, further based on at least a portion of the another text, the attribute information, and the information, generate the text. (See Jeong [0164-0165] “The at least one piece of text 755 [e.g. based on at least a portion of the another text] may… be identified on the basis of at least one of the OCR result for the image represented by the selected thumbnail image [Thus, in response to the user input], scene (or landmark) information of the image, the location (for example, geographical location or POI) at which the image is acquired, a user tag related to the image, a keyword frequently input at the location (for example, webpage) at which the image is acquired, and tag information included in the location (for example, the address of an SNS service webpage referring to the webpage) related to the location at which the image is acquired [e.g. the attribute information, and the information]… in response to reception of the input of selecting one thumbnail image from among the one or more thumbnail images, the electronic device 101 may provide at least one character (for example, a keyword) [e.g. generate the text]”)
Regarding claim 9, Jeong-Kim teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify that another information obtained via a third application before the user input is identified is at least partially associated with the information, before the user input is identified; and based on the another information, the information, and the attribute information, generate the text. (See Jeong [0130] “the processor 120 may store information associated with the acquired image in association with the image. According to certain embodiments, the associated information may be information associated with the image or context in which the image is acquired [e.g. obtained before the user input] For example, the associated information may include recognition information acquired by recognizing the content of the image… the recognition information [e.g. another information partially associated with the information] may include data acquired by applying Optical Character Reader (OCR) [e.g. obtained via a third application before the user input] to text included in the image” See also Jeong [0105-0107] “the processor 120 may acquire recognition information of at least a portion of the content included in the selected image. The image can be selected according to a predetermined input… the processor 120 may acquire character information corresponding to the recognition information on the basis of at least the acquisition. According to certain embodiments, the character information may be at least one keyword (or text) [Thus, further based on the another information, generate the text] that can be used for the image-based retrieval service in order to retrieve other information… the processor 120 may provide the character information to the application through the input unit as at least a portion of the user input. According to certain embodiments, the processor 120 may provide the character information to the application by inputting (or inserting) the character information into the character input portion included in the user interface of the application.” See also Jeong [0137] “The image file 541 may include source information 542 of the image, scene information 543 of the image, location information 544 indicating the location of the electronic device 101 at the time at which the image was acquired [Thus, before the user input is identified], OCR information 545 on the result generated by applying OCR to the image, category information 546 of the image, and relevant app information 547 of the image as well as information on the image. The source information 542, the scene information 543, the location information 544, the OCR information 545, the category information 546, and the relevant app information 547 may be included in metadata (or header information) within the image file 541. [Thus, based on the another information, the information, and the attribute information]”)
Regarding claim 14, Jeong-Kim teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: based on a recognition of the-image, obtain another information regarding at least one object included in a predetermined region of the image; and (See Jeong [0160-0161] “the processor 120 may identify at least one object within an image represented by a thumbnail image selected by an input. According to certain embodiments, the at least one object may include at least one of text included in the image, a partial image included in the image, and a hash tag included in the image [Thus, obtain another information regarding at least one object included in a predetermined region of the image]… the processor 120 may acquire at least one piece of content included in the image by recognizing at least one identified object. For example, the processor 120 may extract at least one feature point of at least one object from at least one identified object and recognize at least one image on the basis of at least one extracted feature point.” See also Jeong [0105-0106] “the processor 120 may extract at least one visual object from the selected image, identify at least one feature point from at least one extracted visual object, and generate the recognition information on the basis of the at least one feature point so as to acquire the recognition information… the processor 120 may acquire character information corresponding to the recognition information on the basis of at least the acquisition. According to certain embodiments, the character information may be at least one keyword (or text) [Thus, generate the text] that can be used for the image-based retrieval service in order to retrieve other information.” See also Jeong [0137] “The image file 541 may include source information 542 of the image, scene information 543 of the image, location information 544 indicating the location of the electronic device 101 at the time at which the image was acquired, OCR information 545 on the result generated by applying OCR to the image, category information 546 of the image, and relevant app information 547 of the image as well as information on the image. The source information 542, the scene information 543, the location information 544, the OCR information 545, the category information 546, and the relevant app information 547 may be included in metadata (or header information) within the image file 541. [Thus, based on the another information, the information, and the attribute information]”))
Regarding claim 19, Jeong-Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Jeong-Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to those elements of claim 20.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong-Kim, in view of Park (US Patent Publication No. US 20160350060 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Jeon-Kim teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1.
Jeong-Kim does not explicitly disclose the attribute information includes data indicating a maximum number of characters.
However, Park teaches wherein the attribute information includes data indicating a maximum number of characters capable of being input in the text input portion, and wherein the text is generated based on the information and the attribute information including the data. (See Park [0013, 0135] “The electronic device includes a first display having a first size, a processor, and a memory storing instructions thereon that when executed allow the processor to receive, from an external device that includes a second display having a second size, a request for obtaining a text input and supplementary information [e.g. attribute information] related to the text input, display, through the first display, a user interface for obtaining the text input, and in response to receiving input information in the user interface… wherein the supplementary information contains at least one of the type of keypad related to text input, the type of input item, keypad language, the security level, the requested text string length, the maximum enterable length [e.g. a maximum number of characters capable of being input in the text input portion], the non-enterable characters, the text that is pre-input into the input window, or information on an application [Thus, the text is generated based on the information and the attribute information including the data].” See also Park [0189] “The maximum enterable length refers to the maximum number of characters that can be input into a single input item. The maximum enterable length may be determined according to the type of input item. For example, if the type of input item is a telephone number, the maximum enterable length may be 10 to 12 characters, and if the type of input item is a password, the maximum enterable length may be 6 to 14 characters.”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong-Kim; which uses a database manager to search a database to obtain a predicted word, to incorporate the teachings of Park which obtains supplementary information related to the text input including a maximum enterable length for the type of data.
One would be motivated to do so to ensure that data entered conforms to the expected format and limitations.
Claims 6, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong-Kim, in view of Paul (US Patent Publication No. US 20220334683 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong-Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Jeong teaches that images are classified based on categories. (See Jeong [0138] “the processor 120 may classify the image file and a first image file of the image files as a first category, among a plurality of categories, and classify the image file and a second image file of the image files as a second category, among the plurality of categories.” See also Jeong Fig. 4 disclose area 434 where the thumbnail images 430 are displayed along with at least one keyword (text or recommended word) in an area 434 located above the thumbnail images.)
Jeong-Kim does not explicitly disclose display items respectively indicating categories of the image.
However, Paul teaches wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: display, via the display, in the first execution screen, items respectively indicating categories of the image, together with the image from among a plurality of images stored in the first application; and in response to the user input being identified while displaying the items together with the image, based on at least a portion of the categories including the category, generate the text. (See Paul [0452-0454, 0465-0469] “As illustrated in FIG. 12A, application control region 726 includes thumbnail media representations 712 that are displayed [e.g. display, in the first execution screen] in a single row. Thumbnail media representations 712 [e.g. plurality of images stored in the first application] of FIG. 12A include thumbnail representations 1212 a-1212 b… computer system 600 detects rightward swipe input 1250 a in media viewer region 724… in response to detecting rightward swipe input 1250 a [Thus, in response to the user input identified while displaying the items with the image], computer system 600 displays enlarged representation 1224 b and ceases to display enlarged representation 1224 a in media viewer region 724… a determination is made that enlarged representation 1224 b includes at least one detected feature (e.g., shirt 1232, dandelion 1234, book 1236, dog 1238, dog 1240, and lavender plant 1242) [e.g. items respectively indicating categories of the image] that belongs to one or more of a set of predetermined categories of features (e.g., and/or is one of a predetermined types of features)… At FIG. 12E, computer system 600 detects tap input 1250 e on feature indicator 1260 a… As illustrated in FIG. 12F, in response to detecting tap input 1250 e, computer system 600 displays feature card 1270… Feature card 1270 includes exit control 1266, feature image 1270 a, feature identifier 1270 b, feature information 1270 c, and feature information 1270 d… Feature identifier 1270 b includes a description of the feature (“Lavender Plant”). Feature information 1270 c includes information concerning the feature (“PLANT GENIUS”) and, in some embodiments, denotes the category of the feature (e.g., lavender plant 1242) that corresponds to feature card 1270. Feature information 1270 d includes additional information concerning the feature.”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong-Kim; which classifies images using categories, to incorporate the teachings of Paul of determining and displaying detected features in media corresponding to predetermined categories.
One would be motivated to do so to improve content searchability leading to more relevant results.
Regarding claim 11, Jeong-Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Jeong teaches that images are classified based on categories. (See Jeong [0138] “the processor 120 may classify the image file and a first image file of the image files as a first category, among a plurality of categories, and classify the image file and a second image file of the image files as a second category, among the plurality of categories.” See also Jeong Fig. 4 disclose area 434 where the thumbnail images 430 are displayed along with at least one keyword (text or recommended word) in an area 434 located above the thumbnail images.)
Jeong-Kim does not explicitly disclose display items respectively indicating categories of the image.
However, Paul teaches display, via the display, in the first execution screen, items respectively indicating categories of a plurality of images stored in the first application; based on a user input regarding at least one item from among the items, display, via the display, in the first execution screen, at least one image from among the images, wherein the at least one image includes the image; while the at least one image is displayed, identify the user input; and based on the user input being identified with displaying the at least one image, generate the text in accordance with at least one category indicated by the at least one item, the at least one category including the category. (See Paul [0452-0454, 0465-0469] “As illustrated in FIG. 12A, application control region 726 includes thumbnail media representations 712 that are displayed [e.g. display, in a first execution screen] in a single row. Thumbnail media representations 712 [e.g. plurality of images stored in the electronic device] of FIG. 12A include thumbnail representations 1212 a-1212 b… computer system 600 detects rightward swipe input 1250 a in media viewer region 724 [Thus, identify the user input while the image]… in response to detecting rightward swipe input 1250 a, computer system 600 displays enlarged representation 1224 b and ceases to display enlarged representation 1224 a in media viewer region 724… a determination is made that enlarged representation 1224 b includes at least one detected feature (e.g., shirt 1232, dandelion 1234, book 1236, dog 1238, dog 1240, and lavender plant 1242) [e.g. items respectively indicating categories of a plurality of image] that belongs to one or more of a set of predetermined categories of features (e.g., and/or is one of a predetermined types of features)… At FIG. 12E, computer system 600 detects tap input 1250 e on feature indicator 1260 a [Thus, in accordance with at least one category indicated by the at least one item]… As illustrated in FIG. 12F, in response to detecting tap input 1250 e, computer system 600 displays feature card 1270… Feature card 1270 includes exit control 1266, feature image 1270 a, feature identifier 1270 b, feature information 1270 c, and feature information 1270 d… Feature identifier 1270 b includes a description of the feature (“Lavender Plant”). Feature information 1270 c includes information concerning the feature (“PLANT GENIUS”) and, in some embodiments, denotes the category of the feature (e.g., lavender plant 1242) that corresponds to feature card 1270. Feature information 1270 d includes additional information concerning the feature [Thus, obtain the text].”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong-Kim; which classifies images using categories, to incorporate the teachings of Paul of determining and displaying detected features in media corresponding to predetermined categories.
One would be motivated to do so to improve content searchability leading to more relevant results.
Regarding claim 12, Jeong-Kim further in view of Paul, teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 11, wherein the at least one item selected by the user input is visually highlighted relative to remaining items from among the items. (See Kim Fig. 14A, [0113] “ For example, when the display 150 is a touch screen, the user may drag the memo write windows 1410 a and 1410 b to the random electronic device information 1421 a and 1421 b of the bluetooth information window 1420 a or the Wi-Fi information window 1420 b.”
PNG
media_image1.png
690
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, at least one item selected by the user input is visually highlighted relative to remaining items from among the items.)
Regarding claim 15, Jeong-Kim teaches all limitations and motivations of claim 1.
Jeong teaches that images are classified based on categories. (See Jeong [0138] “the processor 120 may classify the image file and a first image file of the image files as a first category, among a plurality of categories, and classify the image file and a second image file of the image files as a second category, among the plurality of categories.”)
Jeong-Kim does not explicitly disclose display the image included in a classification from among classifications used in the first software application.
However, Paul teaches display, in the first execution screen, the image included in a classification from among classifications used in the first application; and based on a name of the classification including the image, the information, and the attribute information, generate the text. (See Paul [0452-0454, 0465-0469] “As illustrated in FIG. 12A, application control region 726 includes thumbnail media representations 712 that are displayed [e.g. display, in the first execution screen] in a single row. Thumbnail media representations 712 [e.g. image] of FIG. 12A include thumbnail representations 1212 a-1212 b… computer system 600 detects rightward swipe input 1250 a in media viewer region 724… in response to detecting rightward swipe input 1250 a, computer system 600 displays enlarged representation 1224 b and ceases to display enlarged representation 1224 a in media viewer region 724… a determination is made that enlarged representation 1224 b includes at least one detected feature (e.g., shirt 1232, dandelion 1234, book 1236, dog 1238, dog 1240, and lavender plant 1242) [e.g. image included in a classification from among classifications used in the first software application] that belongs to one or more of a set of predetermined categories [e.g. classifications] of features (e.g., and/or is one of a predetermined types of features)… At FIG. 12E, computer system 600 detects tap input 1250 e on feature indicator 1260 a [Thus, further based on a name of the classification including the image]… As illustrated in FIG. 12F, in response to detecting tap input 1250 e, computer system 600 displays feature card 1270… Feature card 1270 includes exit control 1266, feature image 1270 a, feature identifier 1270 b, feature information 1270 c, and feature information 1270 d… Feature identifier 1270 b includes a description of the feature (“Lavender Plant”). Feature information 1270 c includes information concerning the feature (“PLANT GENIUS”) and, in some embodiments, denotes the category of the feature (e.g., lavender plant 1242) that corresponds to feature card 1270. Feature information 1270 d includes additional information concerning the feature [Thus, generate the text].”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong-Kim; which classifies images using categories, to incorporate the teachings of Paul of determining and displaying detected features in media corresponding to predetermined categories.
One would be motivated to do so to improve content searchability leading to more relevant results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong-Kim, in view of Kim (US Patent Publication No. US 20160350060 A1 – hereinafter Kwang).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong-Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: while displaying the image in the first execution screen, identify the user input; and in response to the user input, based on a name of a folder including an executable object for executing the first application used for displaying the image, generate the text. (See Jeong See Jeong [0164-0165] “the processor 120 may display at least one acquired piece of text along with the one or more thumbnail images… The at least one acquired piece of text may be displayed in the vicinity of the text-input portion within the user interface [e.g. first execution screen] of the application being executed… The at least one piece of text 755 may… be identified on the basis of at least one of the OCR result for the image represented by the selected thumbnail image [Thus, while displaying the image in the first execution screen, identify the user input], scene (or landmark) information of the image, the location (for example, geographical location or POI) at which the image is acquired, a user tag related to the image, a keyword frequently input at the location (for example, webpage) at which the image is acquired, and tag information included in the location (for example, the address of an SNS service webpage referring to the webpage) related to the location at which the image is acquired [e.g. the attribute information, and the information]… in response to reception of the input of selecting one thumbnail image from among the one or more thumbnail images, the electronic device 101 may provide at least one character (for example, a keyword) [e.g. generate the text]”)
Jeong-Kim does not explicitly disclose a name of a folder including an executable object for executing the first application.
However, Kwang teaches based on a name of a folder including an executable object for executing the first application. (See Kwang abstract “The method for running an application in an electronic device includes displaying one application icon of one or more applications contained in a folder, in an icon of the folder, detecting a gesture to the folder icon, and running or changing the application displayed in the folder icon according to the gesture to the folder icon.” See also Kwang [0041-0042, 0048, 0059] “ When the applications in the folder are displayed, the touch detection program 115 can detect the touch on a folder name over a certain time… when the tap on the folder is detected, the folder management program 116 can open the corresponding folder and display the applications in the folder. For example, when the tap on the system folder is detected, the folder management program 116 can display the phone, address book, and text message applications [e.g. first software application] in the system folder [Thus, based on a name of a folder including an executable object for executing the first software application used for displaying the image). Next, when the phone application is tapped [e.g. user input] among the applications of the system folder, the folder management program 116 can run the phone application… in response to the touch input, the touch screen 130 provides the visual output to the user based on text, graphics, and video”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong-Kim; which disclose an electronic device capable of storing and executing multiple applications, to incorporate the teachings of Kwang of running an application contained in a folder.
One would be motivated to do so to efficiently organize installed applications, preventing an overwhelming number of app icons from being scattered across multiple pages.
Allowable Subject Matter
In the Non-Final Office action, claims 10, 13 and 16-18 were objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but indicated as containing allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base and any intervening claims.
Applicant has amended each of claims 10, 13 and 16-18. The effect of those amendments on the previously indicated allowable subject matter is addressed below.
Claim 10 remains a dependent claim, Applicant’s amended include replacing “including the text” with “to which the text is input”, but did not removed the limitation previously indicated as allowable. Claim 10 continues to require “items respectively indicating keywords identified based on the text input portion to which the text is input and another information,” where the another information is obtained via a third application via a third application before the user input is identified, and in response to an input regarding at least one item, changing at least a portion of the text displayed in the second execution screen based on at least one keyword indicated by the at least one item. Therefore, the combined limitations of claim 10 recite subject matter not taught or suggested by the prior art or in combination.
Claim 13 remains a dependent claim and continues to recite the limitations previously indicated as allowable, namely “identify, from among the categories, a category including a largest number of objects as the category of the image;” and generating the text based on the attribute information and the information corresponding to that category. Applicant’s amendments to claim 13 changed the terms “obtain” to “generate” and “media content” to “image”, which do not broaden the claim. The “identify, from among the categories, a category including a largest number of objects as the category of the image;” limitation is not taught or suggested by the prior art or in combination. Therefore, the combined limitations of claim 13 recite subject matter not taught or suggested by the prior art or in combination.
Claim 16 remains a dependent claim and continues to recite identifying first text for the image and second text for another image, identify an upper category of the category of the image and the category of the other image and the category of the other image, and generating the text based on the upper category and the attribute information. Therefore, the combined limitations of claim 16 recite subject matter not taught or suggested by the prior art or in combination.
Claims 17 remains a depend from claim and continue to recite the displaying of items identified based on the information together with the text input portion and the changing of a portion of the text in response to an input together with the items. Therefore, the combined limitations of claim 17 recite subject matter not taught or suggested by the prior art or in combination.
Claim 18 remains a dependent claim, and continue to recite selecting of a word and displaying of items indicating a category, and upper category and a lower category of the word and changing the word. Therefore, the combined limitations of claim 18 recite subject matter not taught or suggested by the prior art or in combination. Applicant amendments of claims 16-18 conform to their terminology to amend claim 1 and address antecedent basis without broadening the claims.
Accordingly, claims 10, 13 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base and any intervening claims. After sufficient search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that claims 10, 13 and 16-18 are not taught by any prior reference found through search.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCAR WEHOVZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3362. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, APU M MOFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/OSCAR WEHOVZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights