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
The applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 1, 3, 6, 11, 14 and 15
Cancelled: None
Added: None
Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 06/04/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuura et al. (US 2004/0196266 A1, hereinafter “Matsuura”).
With regards to Claim 1, , Matsuura discloses an input apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a handwriting inputter (3) to receive a handwritten input on a display (Paragraph [0020], handwriting);
a handwriting recognition controller (Fig. 3 element 14) to recognize the handwriting input received by the handwriting inputter as one or more character string candidates (Fig. 4 element 25);
an operation command recognition controller (Fig. 3 element 14, 17) to obtain one or more operation command candidates corresponding to character strings that at least partially match the one or more character string candidates recognized by the handwriting recognition controller (Fig. 4 element 25, the left most character string is interpreted to read on a command candidate) and
the display controller (2) to display the handwritten input (21) received by the handwriting inputter (3) on the display as a handwritten object (Fig. 4 steps a2-a4),
in a case that the input apparatus receives a first handwritten input and in response to no occurrence of a change in a first handwritten object as which the first handwritten input is displayed on the display during a first period (Para. 0046), display one or more first character string candidates and one or more first operation commands command candidates based on the basis of the first handwritten object (Fig. 4 step a5; Para. 0050),
in a case that the input apparatus receives a second handwritten input, different from the first handwritten input, and in response to no occurrence of a change in a second handwritten object as which the second handwritten input is displayed on the display, different from the first handwritten object, during the first period (Para. 0046), display one or more second character string candidates, different from the one or more first character string candidates, and one or more second operation command candidates, different from the one or more first operation command candidates, based on the second handwritten object (Fig. 4; when different handwritten input is entered),
in a case that one of the one or more first character string candidates is selected, display the selected first character string candidate on the display (Fig. 4 step a7; Para. 0052), and
in a case that one of the one or more second character string candidates is selected, display the selected second character string candidate on the display (Fig. 4 step a7; Para. 0052, when user enters a second handwritten object).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 14 and the media of claim 15.
Claims 2–4 and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0046433 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
With regards to Claim 2, Matsuura does not explicitly disclose the input apparatus according to claim 1, further configured to,
in response to no occurrence of the change in the handwritten object during the first period,
display a handwritten object rectangular area including the handwritten object and displays the one or more operation commands candidates identified as operation commands from the handwritten object;
in response to any one from among (i) no operation command candidate being selected from among the one or more operation command candidates during a second period, (ii) receiving an operation of the user to delete display of the one or more operation command candidates, and (iii) an occurrence of a change in the handwritten object,
delete display of the one or more operation command candidates; and
in response to deleting from the display the one or more operation command candidates due to a condition other than any operation command candidate being selected from among the one or more operation command candidates, 2Docket No. 536360US Preliminary Amendment
maintain display of the handwritten object.
However, Lee teaches further configured to,
in response to no occurrence of the change in the handwritten object during the first period (FIG 9 and Paragraph [0129 – 0136]),
display a handwritten object rectangular area including the handwritten object (Fig. 9 element 132) and displays the one or more operation commands candidates identified as operation commands from the handwritten object (FIG 9 elements 133-1 – 133-4 and Paragraph [0129 – 0136]);
in response to any one from among (i) no operation command candidate being selected from among the one or more operation command candidates during a second period, (ii) receiving an operation of the user to delete display of the one or more operation command candidates, and (iii) an occurrence of a change in the handwritten object (FIGS 12 & 13 element “P”),
delete display of the one or more operation command candidates (FIG 13, shows after “P” is written and operation command candidates are deleted); and
in response to deleting from the display the one or more operation command candidates due to a condition other than any operation command candidate being selected from among the one or more operation command candidates (FIG 13 and Paragraph [0140 – 0144]), 2Docket No. 536360US Preliminary Amendment
maintain display of the handwritten object (FIG 12 & 13 and Paragraph [0140 – 0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee to include a remote control user interface to the device disclosed by Matsuura. The motivation would have been to be able to operate televisions (Lee; Paragraph [0006]).
With regards to Claim 3, Lee teaches the input apparatus according to claim 1, further configured to display the one or more character string candidates identified from the handwritten object (FIG 9 and Paragraph [0129 – 0136]);
in response to either one from among (i) neither operation command candidate nor character string candidate being selected from among the one or more operation command candidates and the one or more character string candidates during the second period and (ii) receiving an operation of the user to delete the one or more operation command candidates and the one or more character string candidates (FIGS 12 & 13 – “P”),
delete display of the one or more operation command candidates (FIG 13, shows after “P” is written and operation command candidates are deleted) and the one or more character string candidates (FIG 13, shows after “P” is written in addition to the S and operation command candidates are deleted); and
in response to deleting the display of the one or more operation command candidates and the one or more character string candidates due to a condition other than any operation command candidate or any character string candidate being selected from among the one or more operation command candidates and the one or more character string candidates (FIG 13 and Paragraph [0140 – 0144]), 2Docket No. 536360US Preliminary Amendment
maintain display of the handwritten object (FIG 12 & 13 and Paragraph [0140 – 0144]).
With regards to Claim 4, Lee teaches the input apparatus according to claim 3, further configured to display character strings (FIGS 12 & 13 element SP) including elements selected from among characters, numerals, symbols, and geometric forms as the one or more character string candidates (132 - SP), and display the operation commands together with the elements selected from among characters, numerals, symbols, and geometric forms (FIG 12 & 13 and Paragraph [0140 – 0144]).
With regards to Claim 11, Lee teaches the input apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display Controller is further configured to, for ultimately displaying the one or more operation command candidates (FIG 9, shows the operations command candidates), first, display the one or more operation command candidates from among the one or more operation command candidates and a submenu button (FIG 13, shows submenu from operation command candidates); and
second, display a remaining operation command candidate from among the one or more operation command candidates in response to the submenu button being operated by the user (see FIGS 9 – 13 and Paragraph [0142 – 0144]).
With regards to Claim 12, Lee teaches the input apparatus according to claim 11, wherein one operation command candidate from among the one or more operation command candidates displayed first with the submenu button corresponds to an operation command last selected by the user (FIGS 9 – 13, shows this feature. Please also see Paragraphs [0142 – 0144]).
With regards to claim 13, Lee teaches the input apparatus according to claim 2, the condition other than any operation command candidate being selected from among the one or more operation command candidates to a case of either one from among (i) receiving an operation of the user to delete the display of the one or more operation command candidates and (ii) an occurrence of a change in the handwritten object (FIG 13 and Paragraph [0140 – 0144]).2Docket No. 536360US Preliminary Amendment
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura in view of Seo et al. (US 2007/0067740 A1, hereinafter “Seo”).
With regards to Claim 5, Matsuura fails to disclose the input apparatus according to claim 1, further configured to store constants that replace variables associated with the one or more operation command candidates, replace the variables associated with the one or more operation command candidates identified from the handwritten object with constants, and execute an operation command from among the one or more operation command candidates for which a variable is replaced with a constant.
Seo discloses: further configured to store (using FIG 3 element 305) constants (Fig. 4A, constant tabs 1 to n) that replace variables (variable tabs 1 to n) associated with the one or more operation command candidates (Paragraph [0066 – 0067]), replace the variables associated with the one or more operation command candidates identified from the handwritten object (Lee’s invention teaches this) with constants (constant tab 1 to n), and execute an operation command from among the one or more operation command candidates for which a variable is replaced with a constant (Paragraph [0050 – 0052 and 0066 – 0067]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have used the teachings of further configured to store constants that replace variables associated with the one or more operation command candidates, replace the variables associated with the one or more operation command candidates identified from the handwritten object with constants, and execute an operation command from among the one or more operation command candidates for which a variable is replaced with a constant in Matsuura’s invention as taught by Seo’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would have been in order to simply and rapidly use frequently used functions and to improve operation efficiency (Seo’s invention Paragraph [0012]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura in view of Seo as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Chung et al. (US 2010/0046020 A1, hereinafter “Chung”).
With regards to Claim 6, Matsuura fails to disclose the input apparatus of claim 5 further comprising a user authenticator to authenticate the user, wherein the input apparatus is further configured to, in response to success of authentication of the user by the user authenticator, set, to the constant, information concerning the user, replace the variable associated with the operation command with the information concerning the user, and execute the operation command for which the variable is replaced with the information concerning the user.
Chung discloses: further comprising a user authenticator (FIG 1 element 17) to authenticate the user (Paragraph [0030]), wherein the input apparatus is further configured to, in response to success of authentication of the user by the user authenticator (Paragraph [0030]), set, to the constant, information concerning the user, replace the variable associated with the operation command with the information concerning the user (Paragraph [0030, 0052 & 0075]), and execute the operation command for which the variable is replaced with the information concerning the user (Paragraph [0030, 0052 & 0075]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have used the teachings of further comprising a user authentication unit configured to authenticate the user, wherein the input apparatus is further configured to, in response to success of authentication of the user by the user authentication unit, set, to the constant, information concerning the user, replace the variable associated with the operation command with the information concerning the user, and execute the operation command for which the variable is replaced with the information concerning the user in Matsuura’s modified invention as taught by Chung’s invention.
The motivation for doing this would have been in order to provide a simplified GUI menu screen for that authenticated user, thereby enhancing user convenience (Chung’s invention Paragraph [0076]).
Claims 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura in view of Jang et al. (US 2014/0062962 A1, hereinafter “Jang”).
With regards to Claim 7, Matsuura fails to disclose the input apparatus according to claim 1, further configured to, in response to position information of a fixed object obtained from handwriting having predetermined relationships with the handwritten object, 4Docket No. 536360US Preliminary Amendment
identify an operation command, from among the one or more operation command candidates, concerning the fixed object that has the predetermined relationships with the handwritten object.
Jang discloses: further configured to, in response to position information of a fixed object (FIG 4A, handwriting of circle or drawing a line under words or phrases) obtained from handwriting having predetermined relationships with the handwritten object (FIG 5 and Paragraph [0041 – 0042]), 4Docket No. 536360US Preliminary Amendment
identify an operation command, from among the one or more operation command candidates (FIG 4B, copy, share, search), concerning the fixed object that has the predetermined relationships with the handwritten object (FIG 5 and Paragraph [0041 – 0042])4Docket No. 536360USPreliminary Amendment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Jang to include a handwriting gesture in the device disclosed by Matsuura/Kuno/Soin. The motivation would have been for a selection purpose (Jang; Fig. 4B).
With regards to Claim 8, Jang teaches the input apparatus according to claim 7, further configured to, identify the operation command for editing or modifying the fixed object that has the predetermined relationships with the handwritten object (FIG 5 and Paragraph [0041 – 0042] – teaches of sharing, copying, etc., however it is old and well known that one of the commands could also be for editing or modifying the fixed object such as conversion function of Matsuura, figure 4)4Docket No. 536360USPreliminary Amendment.
With regards to Claim 9, Jang teaches the input apparatus according to claim 7, further configured to, in response to position information of a plurality of fixed objects obtained from handwriting having predetermined relationships with the single handwritten object (FIG 5 and Paragraph [0041 – 0042]), identify an operation command, from among the one or more operation command candidates, concerning the plurality of fixed objects that have the predetermined relationships with the single handwritten object (FIG 5 and Paragraph [0041 – 0042]).
With regards to Claim 10, Jang teaches the input apparatus according to claim 7, further configured to, in response to an overlap of the fixed object obtained from handwriting with the handwritten object being of a predetermined overlapping percentage or more (FIG 5 and Paragraph [0041 – 0042] – the overlapping percentage is the encircling of the text or handwritten text) or being of more than the predetermined overlapping percentage or in response to overlaps of the plurality of fixed objects obtained from handwriting with the single handwritten object being of a predetermined overlapping percentage or more or being of more than the predetermined overlapping percentage, 5Docket No. 536360US Preliminary Amendment
determine that the position information of the fixed object obtained from handwriting has the predetermined relationships with the handwritten object or the position information of the plurality of fixed objects obtained from handwriting has the predetermined relationships with the single handwritten object (FIG 5 and Paragraph [0041 – 0042]).
Conclusion
The prior at made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Goldsmith et al (US 2016/0320961 A1) discloses displaying a synthetic candidates for handwritten input (Fig. 4 element 402).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights