DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 12/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites “displaying a functional menu region at the second position of the virtual keyboard…” which the Examiner finds to be unclear. Claim 1, upon which claim 10 depends upon, recites “the second key region after adjustment is located in a second position….”. Therefore, the functional menu region and second key region appear to be displayed at a same position. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the second specified directional dimension " in last. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13-15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kyprianou et al. (US 2012/0206363), hereinafter Kyprianou.
As per claim 1, Kyprianou teaches the following:
a display method for a virtual keyboard, applicable to an electronic device, (see abstract), and the method comprising:
displaying the virtual keyboard on an interface. See Fig. 2;
determining, in response to a split operation for the virtual keyboard, a region where virtual keys of a first part of the virtual keyboard are located as a first key region, and a region where virtual keys of a second part of the virtual keyboard are located as a second key region. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraphs [0035] and [0036], in response to a first and second touch (300 and 302), a virtual keyboard is split into two different “key regions”; and
adjusting the first key region and the second key region and displaying a functional region between the first key region and the second key region. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraphs [0037] and [0038], the keys in the region are adjusted to fit within the user designated sections, i.e., the regions are adjusted. As Kyprianou further shows in Fig. 4, a region is displayed between the two sections which is interpreted as encompassing a “functional region”;
wherein a width of the first key region after adjustment in a first specified directional dimension is smaller than that of the first key region before adjustment, a width of the second key region after adjustment in the first specified directional dimension is smaller than that of the second key region before adjustment, the first key region after adjustment is located in a first position close to a boundary of the virtual keyboard in a first direction, the second key region after adjustment is located in a second position close to a boundary of the virtual keyboard in a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are opposite to each other in the first specified directional dimension. As Kyprianou shows in Figs. 2 and 4 (reproduced below), the keyboard regions are adjusted to widths.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
305
423
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
wherein the determining, in response to the split operation for the virtual keyboard, the region where the virtual keys of the first part of the virtual keyboard are located as the first key region, and the region where the virtual keys of the second part of the virtual keyboard are located as the second key region, comprises:
obtaining, in response to the split operation for the virtual keyboard, split position information for the virtual keys in the virtual keyboard. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraph [0036], and corresponding Fig. 4, a “split position” is designated by the user via touch inputs 400 and 402; and
obtaining, based on the split position information, the region where the virtual keys of the first part of the virtual keyboard are located as the first key region, and the region where the virtual keys of the second part of the virtual keyboard are located as the second key region. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraph [0037], the keyboard sections are laid out based upon the user touch positions (split position).
Regarding claim 3, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 2 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
wherein the split position information comprises a split trajectory along a second specified directional dimension in the virtual keyboard, and the second specified directional dimension is perpendicular to the first specified directional dimension. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraph [0038], inner vertical boundaries 414 and 416 (split trajectory) delineate an edge of each section, where the inner vertical boundaries are perpendicular to a horizontal width of the section;
the obtaining, based on the split position information, the region where the virtual keys of the first part of the virtual keyboard are located as the first key region, and the region where the virtual keys of the second part of the virtual keyboard are located as the second key region, comprises:
obtaining, a region where the virtual keys are located at a first side of the split trajectory in the virtual keyboard along the first specified directional dimension as the first key region, and a region where the virtual keys are located at a second side of the split trajectory in the virtual keyboard along the first specified directional dimension as the second key region. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraph [0038], the section sizes are defined via the inner boundaries. Furthermore, as Kyprianou teaches in paragraphs [0067] and [0068], and corresponding Figs. 9 and 10, upon a user selecting a control and dragging said control, the keyboard is split from a vertical line at the location of said control.
Regarding claim 4, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
wherein the obtaining, the region where the virtual keys are located at the first side of the split trajectory in the virtual keyboard along the first specified directional dimension as the first key region, and the region where the virtual keys are located at the second side of the split trajectory in the virtual keyboard along the first specified directional dimension as the second key region, comprises:
obtaining, in a case that a position of the split trajectory of the virtual keyboard has virtual keys existing therein, the virtual keys located at the position of the split trajectory as target keys; obtaining a region where the virtual keys are located at the first side of the split trajectory in the virtual keyboard along the first specified directional dimension and the target keys as the first key region; and obtaining a region where the virtual keys are located at the second side of the split trajectory in the virtual keyboard along the first specified directional dimension and the target keys as the second key region. As Kyprianou shows in Figs. 4 and 7 (reproduced below), a vertical line separating the keys (split trajectory) dictates which region the key is assigned to. Kyprianou further teaches in paragraph [0037] that a key (space key in the example) which falls on the dividing line, may be placed in both regions.
PNG
media_image3.png
311
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
351
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 2 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
the obtaining, in response to the split operation for the virtual keyboard, the split position information for the virtual key in the virtual keyboard, comprises: displaying, in response to the split operation for the virtual keyboard, a split control in the virtual keyboard; and obtaining, in response to an operation for the split control, the split position information for the virtual keys in the virtual keyboard. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraph [0068], and corresponding Fig. 10, split controls 1006 and 1010 may be presented which allow the user to continue to change the size of the sections.
Regarding claim 6, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
wherein the split control is a slider bar, the slider bar is parallel to the first specified directional dimension, and the obtaining, in response to the operation for the split control, the split position information for the virtual key in the virtual keyboard, comprises: controlling, in response to a first sliding operation for a sliding block of the slider bar, the sliding block to slide in a sliding track of the slider bar along a sliding direction of the first sliding operation; and determining, based on a position where the sliding block stops sliding, the split position information for the virtual keys in the virtual keyboard. As Kyprianou shows in Fig. 9, a control 904 may be used to split the virtual keyboard. Kyprianou further teaches in paragraph [0068], and corresponding Fig. 10, that the control 904 may be touched and dragged in a horizontal direction for causing the keyboard to split to the slid position, which the Examiner interprets as encompassing Applicant’s “slider bar”.
Regarding claim 7, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
the split control is an indicator control that is movable, and the obtaining, in response to the operation for the split control, the split position information for the virtual key in the virtual keyboard, comprises: controlling, in response to a second sliding operation for the indicator control, the indicator control to move along a move trajectory of the second sliding operation; and determining, based on the move trajectory of the indicator control, the split position information for the virtual keys in the virtual keyboard. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraphs [0067] and [0068], and corresponding Figs. 9 and 10, split controls 1006 and 1010 may be presented which allow the user to continue to change the size of the sections and are manipulated via touch dragging.
Regarding claim 13, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
wherein key edges of the first key region and the second key region close to side edges of a middle position of the virtual keyboard respectively, are aligned in the second specified directional dimension and displayed. As may be seen in Kyprianou’s Fig. 4, the keys 410 are aligned horizontally between the two sections.
Regarding claim 14, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
wherein a trigger control for triggering a split of the virtual keyboard, and the determining, in response to the split operation for the virtual keyboard, the region where the virtual keys of the first part of the virtual keyboard are located as the first key region, and the region where the virtual keys of the second part of the virtual keyboard are located as the second key region, further comprises:
determining, in case of detecting an operation for the trigger control, the split operation for the virtual keyboard is detected. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraph [0067], a control 904 may be used to split the keyboard.
Regarding claim 15, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
wherein before the determining, in response to the split operation for the virtual keyboard, the region where the virtual keys of the first part of the virtual keyboard are located as the first key region, and the region where the virtual keys of the second part of the virtual keyboard are located as the second key region, the method further comprises:
determining, in case of detecting a predetermined trigger gesture for the virtual keyboard, the split operation for the virtual keyboard is detected. As Kyprianou teaches in paragraph [0036], a trigger control may be detect which comprises the user touching two separate locations, i.e., a gesture.
As per claim 19, Kyprianou teaches the following:
an electronic device, comprising: a processor or a plurality of processors; a memory; a program or a plurality of programs, wherein the program or programs are stored in the memory and executed by the processor or processors. See Fig. 1.
The remaining limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 20, Kyprianou teaches the following:
a computer-readable storage medium, storing an executable program code, wherein the executable program code is configured to be executed by a processor. See Fig. 1.
The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyprianou as applied to claim 1, in view of Li et al. (US 10,209,885), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 8, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
wherein the determining, in response to the split operation for the virtual keyboard, the region where the virtual key of the first part in the virtual keyboard is located as the first key region, and the region where the virtual key of the second part in the virtual keyboard is located as the second key region, comprises:
executing, . As Kyprianou shows in Fig. 4, the method determines which region each key belongs.
However, Kyprianou does not explicitly teach of determining a row of virtual keys being greater than a predetermined number. In a similar field of endeavor, Li teaches of a method of arranging keys of a virtual keyboard. Li further teaches in column 4, lines 37-57, that a maximum amount of keys may be determined based upon a selected display area. Therefore, upon the modification of Kyprianou in view of Li, upon a user selecting a split option of Kyprianou, a maximum number of keys allowed within a split region is determined utilizing the method of Li.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the region splitting of Kyprianou with the determination of maximum keys allowed per region of Li. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the determination of Li would benefit users in preventing a region from being “overcrowded” with keys.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 8 as described above. Kyprianou further teaches the following:
the method further comprises: reducing, in a case that the number of virtual keys in each row of the virtual keyboard is less than or equal to the predetermined number, a width of a current key region of the virtual keyboard in the first specified directional dimension, in response to the split operation for the virtual keyboard; and displaying the current key region at the first position of the virtual keyboard. As Kyprianou shows in Figs. 4 and 7 (shown below), the region width is set by the number of keys, therefore, upon the number of keys being less, the width of the region is reduced.
PNG
media_image5.png
307
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
343
455
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyprianou in view of Li as applied to claims 1, 8, and 9, and further in view of Stovicek et al. (US 2014/0022285), hereinafter Stovicek.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 9 as described above. While Kyprianou shows an unused space in between key regions in Fig. 4, Kyprianou does not explicitly teach of a functional menu region in this area. In a similar field of endeavor, Stovicek teaches of two separate key regions (see 108 of Fig. 1). Stovicek further teaches the following:
wherein the displaying the current key region at the first position of the virtual keyboard, comprises:
displaying the current key region at the first position of the virtual keyboard and displaying a functional menu region at the second position of the virtual keyboard where the current key region is displayed. As Stovicek teaches in paragraph [0020], a pane may comprise a content view (where the Examiner interprets content as encompassing a functional menu) and shows in Fig. 7 that the content may be displayed between two separated key regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the region splitting of Kyprianou with the content in between the split regions of Stovicek. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the content presentation of Stovicek benefits users in utilizing available display space as opposed to simply a “blank area”.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyprianou in view of Li in view of Stovicek as applied to claims 1 and 8-10, and further in view of Spriesterbach et al. (US 7,383,342), hereinafter Spriesterbach.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 10 as described above. While Kyprianou in view of Stovicek teaches that content may be displayed between the split regions, none of Kyprianou, Li, nor Stovicek explicitly teach of functional keys being presented. In a similar field of endeavor, Spriesterbach teaches of a method for displaying a virtual keyboard (see abstract). Spriesterbach further teaches the following:
wherein the functional menu region comprises a secondary page corresponding to functional keys of the virtual keyboard. As Spriesterbach teaches in the abstract, a secondary keyboard may display field specific keys (functional keys). Upon the modification, a user of Kyprianou may split a keyboard, wherein content may be displayed between the split regions as in Stovicek, and the content being field specific keys of Spriesterbach.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the content region of Kyprianou in view of Stovicek with the functional keys of Spriesterbach. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Spriesterbach teaches in column 1, lines 23-35, displaying such keys in an on-demand fashion benefits users of smaller display devices, where the display size may not accommodate a large number of specialized, rarely used keys.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyprianou in view of Li as applied to claims 1, 8, and 9, and further in view of Koch et al. (US 2014/0006994), hereinafter Koch.
Regarding claim 12, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 9 as described above. However, Kyprianou does not explicitly teach of determining a holding state. In a similar field of endeavor, Koch teaches of a method of splitting a virtual keyboard (see abstract). Koch further teaches the following:
wherein the displaying the current key region at the first position of the virtual keyboard, comprises:
obtaining a holding state of the electronic device. As Koch teaches in paragraph [0169], sensor inputs indicate device 100 is being held;
determining, in a case that the holding state of the electronic device satisfies a predetermined holding condition, the first position based on a side where the electronic device is held; and displaying the current key region at the first position of the virtual keyboard. As Koch teaches in paragraph [0182], a first criteria may be that the device is being held and paragraph [0193] that a soft keyboard is displayed best suited to how the device is being held.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the split control of Kyprianou with the device hold detection of Koch. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Koch teaches in paragraph [0028], splitting a keyboard most benefits users when the device is being held.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyprianou as applied to claim 1 in view of Koch.
Regarding claim 16, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Kyprianou does not explicitly teach of the split operation being a shake. In a similar field of endeavor, Koch teaches of a method of splitting a virtual keyboard (see abstract). Koch further teaches the following:
wherein before the determining, in response to the split operation for the virtual keyboard, the region where the virtual keys of the first part of the virtual keyboard are located as the first key region, and the region where the virtual keys of the second part of the virtual keyboard are located as the second key region, the method further comprises:
determining, in case of detecting a shake operation for the virtual keyboard, the split operation for the virtual keyboard is detected. As Koch teaches in paragraph [0169], a split control command may be displayed in response to a sensor input that satisfies a first criteria, which may be shaking by less than a predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the split control of Kyprianou with the shaking input of Koch. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the shaking input of Koch benefits users in utilizing an input without requiring the user to actually view the display.
Regarding claim 17, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 16 as described above. However, as described above, Kyprianou does not explicitly teach of the split operation being a shake. Koch further teaches the following:
wherein the determining, in case of detecting a shake operation for the virtual keyboard, the split operation for the virtual keyboard is detected, further comprises:
determining, in case of detecting a shake operation for the virtual keyboard and in case of detecting a shake amplitude of the shake operation exceeding a predetermined amplitude, the split operation for the virtual keyboard is detected. As Koch teaches in paragraph [0180], the shaking input may be more than a predefined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the split control of Kyprianou with the shaking input of Koch. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the shaking input of Koch benefits users in utilizing an input without requiring the user to actually view the display.
Regarding claim 18, Kyprianou teaches the method of claim 9 as described above. However, Kyprianou does not explicitly teach of determining a holding state. In a similar field of endeavor, Koch teaches of a method of splitting a virtual keyboard (see abstract). Koch further teaches the following:
wherein the displaying the current key region at the first position of the virtual keyboard, comprises:
obtaining a holding state of the electronic device. As Koch teaches in paragraph [0169], sensor inputs indicate device 100 is being held;
determining, in a case that the holding state of the electronic device satisfies a condition corresponding to the electronic device not being held or a condition corresponding to the electronic device being held with both hands, the first position based on a dominant hand; and displaying the current key region at the first position of the virtual keyboard. As Koch teaches in paragraph [0182], a first criteria may be that the device is being held and paragraph [0193] that a soft keyboard is displayed best suited to how the device is being held.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the split control of Kyprianou with the device hold detection of Koch. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Koch teaches in paragraph [0028], splitting a keyboard most benefits users when the device is being held.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US 9,535,605), see Fig. 3A.
*Duggan et al. (US 2013/0057475), see abstract.
**Cohen et al. (US 2012/0324381), see Figs. 2B and 2C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
