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 .
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenfeld et al. (US 20170052701 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Rosenfeld).
Regarding Claim 1, Rosenfeld discloses An interaction method, comprising: (See Abstract, “A method for receiving input . . .”)
displaying a three-dimensional environment generated by an extended reality device; (See [0010], “In a first aspect, a method for receiving input, by a virtual reality system includes creating a three-dimensional (3D) mesh for a virtual space.” Note that a VR system would mean a VR device and thus “an extended reality device” and a virtual space would correspond to “a three-dimensional environment”.)
presenting a user interaction interface in the three-dimensional environment, wherein an input box is displayed on the user interaction interface; (See [0021], “FIG. 1 illustrates a graphical user interface (GUI) 100 of an example VR system. The VR system constructs a GUI 100 for a virtual keyboard 102 in a virtual 3D world of a computer simulation.” Also See [0006], “ . . . display various input objects for collecting information from the user. These input objects may include text fields and graphical user interface (GUI) objects.” In this case, the GUI corresponds to the “user interaction interface” and text field input objects correspond to “input box”.)
displaying a fake keyboard in the three-dimensional environment in response to a first operation for the input box; (See [0030], “In some implementations, the virtual keyboard automatically appears when the user selects a text field 110, 112.”)
displaying a fake screen in an adjacent area of a display location of the fake keyboard, wherein an extract box is displayed on the fake screen; and (See [0035], “In some implementations, the virtual keyboard includes a preview pane 120, 220. The preview pane 120, 220 displays the text being typed.” Also see Fig. 1 showing preview plane 120. Note that the preview plane can be considered as both the “fake screen” and “extract box” within the fake screen.)
synchronously displaying corresponding input content in the extract box and the input box in response to a second operation for the fake keyboard. (See [0022], “The virtual keyboard 102 of the GUI 100 allows a user used to write alphabetical, numerical, and special characters in text fields 110, 112 while inside a virtual space.” See [0035], “In some implementations, the virtual keyboard includes a preview pane 120, 220. The preview pane 120, 220 displays the text being typed.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Rosenfeld discloses The interaction method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the fake screen in the adjacent area of the display location of the fake keyboard comprises: displaying the fake screen at a plane extension of a plane on which the display location of the fake keyboard is located. (See [0035], “In some implementations, the virtual keyboard includes a preview pane 120, 220. The preview pane 120, 220 displays the text being typed.” Also see Fig. 1 showing preview plane 120 which is the fake screen at a plane extension of a plane on which the keyboard is located.)
Regarding Claim 6, Rosenfeld discloses The interaction method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: dynamically adjusting a size of the extract box based on the input content. (See [0035], “In some implementations, the virtual keyboard includes a preview pane 120, 220. The preview pane 120, 220 displays the text being typed.” Although not explicitly shown, it would obvious that once the text is type in, the extract box which contains the text would change in size to accommodate the added text.)
Regarding Claim 8, Rosenfeld discloses The interaction method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: hiding the fake screen in response to an input completion instruction for the input content. (See [0030], “In some implementations, the virtual keyboard may only be required when entering characters into text fields 110, 112. In some implementations, the virtual keyboard automatically appears when the user selects a text field 110, 112. The virtual keyboard can be automatically hidden when a user has not selected a text field 110, 112.” Here, Rosenfeld teaches being able to hide the virtual keyboard, and thus implicitly, the preview plane (fake screen) as well. Rosenfeld also teaches that the virtual keyboard is only required when the user is typing, and thus, when the typing is finished and the input is entered, then obviously, the virtual keyboard and consequently the preview plane (fake screen) would now be hidden (hiding the fake screen in response to an input completion instruction for the input content).)
Regarding Claim 9, Rosenfeld discloses The interaction method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: adjusting a display location of the fake screen based on a gaze focus of a user. (See [0039], “In some implementations, the virtual keyboard 102, 202, 204 can be set to any angle (e.g. 50 degrees) up from the horizontal plane, which may make the virtual keyboard 102, 202, 204 more comfortable for the user to read and interact with in the virtual space.” Also see [0005], “The HMDs track's the user's head's physical location as well as rotation and accordingly changes the virtual or augmented view displayed.” Here, Rosenfeld teaches that the virtual keyboard can be set at any angle and since the preview plane (fake screen) is adjacent to the virtual keyboard, the preview plane can also be set at any angle as well. Since Rosenfeld also teaches that it is common for VR system to track user’s head location/rotation (a gaze focus of a user) and accordingly change the VR/AR view displayed, then implicitly, the virtual plane and preview plane (fake screen) would be adjusted according to the gaze of the user.)
Regarding Claim 10, Rosenfeld discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program is adapted to be loaded by a processor, to perform an interaction method comprising: (See [0072], “If implemented in software, the functions can be stored on or transmitted over as one or more instructions or code on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Non-transitory computer-readable media includes both computer storage media and communication media including any medium that facilitates transfer of a computer program from one place to another.” Also see [0061], “The computer system 400 can include a processor 440 . . .”)
displaying a three-dimensional environment generated by an extended reality device; presenting a user interaction interface in the three-dimensional environment, wherein an input box is displayed on the user interaction interface; displaying a fake keyboard in the three-dimensional environment in response to a first operation for the input box; displaying a fake screen in an adjacent area of a display location of the fake keyboard, wherein an extract box is displayed on the fake screen; and synchronously displaying corresponding input content in the extract box and the input box in response to a second operation for the fake keyboard. (The above limitations are similar to those of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 contains similar limitations as to Claim 5 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 contains similar limitations as to Claim 9 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 16, Rosenfeld discloses A terminal device comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to perform, by invoking the computer program stored in the memory, an interaction method comprising: (See [0062], “The processor (e.g., central processing unit (CPU)) 440 can be a chip on a motherboard that can retrieve and execute programming instructions stored in the memory 420.”)
displaying a three-dimensional environment generated by an extended reality device; presenting a user interaction interface in the three-dimensional environment, wherein an input box is displayed on the user interaction interface; displaying a fake keyboard in the three-dimensional environment in response to a first operation for the input box; displaying a fake screen in an adjacent area of a display location of the fake keyboard, wherein an extract box is displayed on the fake screen; and synchronously displaying corresponding input content in the extract box and the input box in response to a second operation for the fake keyboard. (The above limitations are similar to those of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 contains similar limitations as to Claim 5 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 5.
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.
Claims 2-4, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenfeld in view of Gobović, Nikola, (“Easy Custom Keyboard with InputConnection”) (Hereinafter referred to as Gobović.
Regarding Claim 2, Rosenfeld discloses The interaction method according to claim 1, wherein the synchronously displaying the corresponding input content in the extract box and the input box in response to the second operation for the fake keyboard comprises: obtaining, in response to the second operation for the fake keyboard, input content that is input through the fake keyboard; and (See [0022], “The virtual keyboard 102 of the GUI 100 allows a user used to write alphabetical, numerical, and special characters in text fields 110, 112 while inside a virtual space.”)
sending the input content to the extract box and the input box for synchronous display. (See [0022], “The virtual keyboard 102 of the GUI 100 allows a user used to write alphabetical, numerical, and special characters in text fields 110, 112 while inside a virtual space.” Also see [0035], “In some implementations, the virtual keyboard includes a preview pane 120, 220. The preview pane 120, 220 displays the text being typed.” Note that since Rosenfeld teaches writing to the text fields, then it would be implied that the typed text would also show up in the text field as this is very common feature.)
However, Rosenfeld fails to explicitly disclose sending the input content to the extract box and the input box through an InputConnection interface for synchronous display.
Gobović teaches sending the input content to the extract box and the input box through an InputConnection interface for synchronous display. (See Pages 1-2 teaching about the InputConnection interface being a communication channel for the android platform. Also see Page 3, “So in layman’s terms, InputConnection acts as a glue between the Input Method Engine and an Editor which is responsible for displaying the input.” In this case, the Input Method Engine corresponds to the virtual keyboard which allows for user input, and the Editor would correspond to input content and extract box. In combination Rosenfeld already teaching to synchronously display the input content in the extract and input box, the above limitation is taught.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosenfeld with Gobović to include us an InputConnection interface.
The motivation to combine Rosenfeld with Gobović would have been obvious as Gobović is simply showing InputConnection, a well-known API interface within the Android framework which is commonly used for virtual keyboards (See Gobović Pages 1-3). Thus, in a common scenario in which a person of ordinary skill in the art is creating a virtual keyboard for a system on the Android platform, using the InputConnection interface would have been obvious (See Gobović Pages 1-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Rosenfeld in view of Gobović discloses The interaction method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining updated input content in response to an update operation for the input content displayed in the extract box, and synchronously displaying the updated input content in the input box. (See Rosenfeld [0035], “In some implementations, the virtual keyboard includes a preview pane 120, 220. The preview pane 120, 220 displays the text being typed. The preview pane 120, 220 allows the user to see what they have typed without the user having to move the user's head repeatedly to view selected text fields 110, 112.” Here, Rosenfeld implies that newly typed text (updated input content in response to an update operation for the input content displayed in the extract box) is synchronously displaying in both the preview plane (extract box) and the text fields (input box).)
Regarding Claim 4, Rosenfeld in view of Gobović discloses The interaction method according to claim 3, wherein the synchronously displaying the updated input content in the input box comprises: sending the updated input content to the input box through the InputConnection interface for synchronous display. (See Gobović, Page 3 teaching an Input Method Engine being anything that can produce text, such as a keyboard and an Editor which is used to display the input from the input engine. Further, it states that, “So in layman’s terms, InputConnection acts as a glue between the Input Method Engine and an Editor which is responsible for displaying the input.” The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 2 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 contains similar limitations as to Claim 2 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 contains similar limitations as to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 contains similar limitations as to Claim 4 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 contains similar limitations as to Claim 2 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 contains similar limitations as to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 contains similar limitations as to Claim 4 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenfeld in view of Kerc (“Adjust width of input field to its input”).
Regarding Claim 7, Rosenfeld fails to explicitly disclose The interaction method according to claim 6, wherein the method further comprises: dynamically adapting a size of the fake screen based on the dynamically adjusted size of the extract box. (See Page 2 showing the code for a dynamically resizing textbox which is based on the length of the input text. When combined with Rosenfeld which already teaches the preview plane (fake screen), which is also considered a textbox, then applying the idea of a dynamically resizing textbox to the preview plane would thus teach the above limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosenfeld with Kerc to include having a dynamically resizing textbox.
The motivation to combine Rosenfeld with Kerc would have been obvious as the preview plane taught by Rosenfeld is a textbox, and thus applying Kerc which teaches being able to dynamically resize a textbox based on the text length would have been obvious. Kerc is simply teaching a common technique of dynamically resizing a textbox, which a person of ordinary skill in the art, would be able to do.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG G HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-4:30pm EST | Fri 7:30am-11:30am EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights