DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in response to communications filed on 12/9/2025.
Claims 3-4 are cancelled. Claims 1-2 & 5-20 remain pending. Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 1-2 & 5-20 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application is a continuation of application 16/940,723, now US 11,477,146, and claims foreign priority to CN202010068136.1 filed 1/20/2020, 202010068388.4 filed 1/20/2020, 202010068407.3 filed 1/20/2020, 202010070486.1 filed 1/20/2020, and 202010070487.6 filed 1/20/2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications above have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In the communications filed, applicant argues in substance that:
Argument (a) At no point does Vunic disclose an operation in which, after data type conversion has been completed, a user is presented with editing functions to select or crop the already converted information. Rather, the segmentation in Vunic serves to define the very content that will later be transcoded and distributed; it is not a user-initiated, post-conversion editing stage on a converted item as now required by step S30 of claim 1.
In response to Argument (a), examiner respectfully disagrees.
As correctly noted by applicant, Vunic teaches the video feed may be transcoded before event-segments are trimmed (i.e. cropped), and further teaches that the trimming is based on user preferences (See Vunic ¶0062). Thus the editing (i.e. cropping) occurs after the transcoding (i.e. data type conversion). With respect to arguments concerning a user being presented with editing functions, such features are not adequately claims. The claim presently recites “providing editing functions for user after the conversion is completed”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation would include subsequent to the file conversion, performing an editing function based on user input, which is similarly taught by Vunic as described above.
Argument (b) Furthermore, Vunic's clipping logic is system-driven and event-trigger based, not the interactive, user-driven editing set out in claim 1. The "preferences" referenced in Vunic are used to configure how long before and after an event the system should trim the clip, but the actual detection of events and the trimming itself are carried out automatically by detectors and pattern recognition modules.
In response to Argument (b), examiner respectfully disagrees. See response to argument (a) above.
Argument (c) The amended claim 1 also now recites that, in step S30, for pieces of information that cannot be shared, the method processes those pieces of information according to a preset strategy that includes filtering or hiding non-shareable pieces, making them unselectable while outputting a prompt, displaying a mark indicating that the corresponding pieces of information cannot be shared, and compressing or encrypting the non-shareable pieces. This additional limitation further distinguishes the claimed method from both Hanes and Vunic.
In response to Argument (c), the arguments are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection.
For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are considered not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-34 of U.S. Patent No. 11,477,146. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See MPEP § 804.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 2008/0181578 A1) in view of Vunic et al. (US 2012/0219271 A1) in view of Moha et al. (US 2013/0205219 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Hanes teaches:
An information sharing method, comprising:
S10: obtaining information to be shared that a sending terminal wants to share to a receiving terminal; (a computer records and saves media content on a storage device 54 for subsequent playback on a playback device 71 [Hanes: 0009-11]);
S20: detecting whether the information to be shared meets a preset rule, the preset rule comprising: the information meeting a first preset condition, wherein the information to be shared meeting the first preset condition comprises the information to be shared comprising at least one preset data type; (examining a connected playback device 71 to determine supported video formats, determining the supported format of playback device 71 is different from the format used to store the media content files, selecting an appropriate format, and performing transcoding by the storage device 54 [Hanes: 0019; 0012-13; 0016]);
and S30: in determining that the information to be shared meets the preset rule, sending the information according to a preset strategy, comprising: performing data type conversion on the information to be shared; (transcoding the media content into a suitable format and transferring the transcoded content from the storage device 54 to the playback device 71 [Hanes: 0013; 0011]).
However, Hanes does not teach:
and providing editing functions for user after the conversion is completed, wherein the editing functions comprises selecting or cropping the information to be shared based on user’s need.
In a similar field of endeavor transcoding live-action video, Vunic discloses:
and providing editing functions for user after the conversion is completed, wherein the editing functions comprises selecting or cropping the information to be shared based on user’s need; (segmenting (i.e. cropping) live video feeds into individual clips based on user preferences [Vunic: 0024; 0049; 0061] wherein the video-feed is transcoded to a plurality of encodings before event-segments are recorded and/or before event-segments are trimmed into video-segments [Vunic: 0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes in view of Vunic in order to provide editing functions after the conversion is completed in the system of Hanes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes with Vunic as doing so would allow viewers to be able to request to see any highlight they wish from the camera angle they prefer [Vunic: 0003].
However, Hanes-Vunic does not teach:
for pieces of information among the information to be shared that cannot be shared, processing the pieces of information that cannot be shared according to the preset strategy, the preset strategy comprising at least one of: filtering out some or all of the pieces of information that cannot be shared, hiding some or all of the pieces of information that cannot be shared, setting some or all of the pieces of information that cannot be shared to be unselectable and outputting prompt information, displaying a mark indicating that corresponding pieces of information cannot be shared, and compressing or encrypting the pieces of information that cannot be shared.
In a similar field of endeavor involving sharing content, Tanimoto discloses:
for pieces of information among the information to be shared that cannot be shared, processing the pieces of information that cannot be shared according to the preset strategy, the preset strategy comprising at least one of: filtering out some or all of the pieces of information that cannot be shared, hiding some or all of the pieces of information that cannot be shared, setting some or all of the pieces of information that cannot be shared to be unselectable and outputting prompt information, displaying a mark indicating that corresponding pieces of information cannot be shared, and compressing or encrypting the pieces of information that cannot be shared; (the share button is greyed out or unresponsive if no compatible content type is selected, for example, selecting an audio content type when no content sharing services are setup or available to share audio content types [Moha: 0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic in view of Moha in order to display a mark indicating that corresponding pieces of information cannot be shared in the system of Hanes-Vunic.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic with Moha as doing so would provide a visual indication to a user that selected content is not able to be shared, thereby allowing the user to alter their selection.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 2008/0181578 A1) in view of Vunic et al. (US 2012/0219271 A1) in view of Cudak et al. (US 2017/0329595 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Hanes teaches:
An information sharing method, comprising:
A10: obtaining processing information, wherein the processing information is obtained from a sending terminal and/or provided by a receiving terminal; (examining a connected playback device 71 to determine supported video formats [Hanes: 0019; 0012-13; 0016]);
A11: processing information to be shared according to the processing information to obtain target sharing information, wherein the operation A11 comprises: performing data type conversion on the information to be shared; (determining the supported format of playback device 71 is different from the format used to store the media content files, selecting an appropriate format, and performing transcoding by the storage device 54 [Hanes: 0019; 0012-13; 0016]);
D11: detecting whether the target sharing information is the same as first sharing information, wherein the first sharing information is original information to be shared; (examining a connected playback device 71 to determine supported video formats, determining the supported format of playback device 71 is different from the format used to store the media content files, and selecting an appropriate format [Hanes: 0019; 0012-13; 0016]);
D12: in responding to a determination that the target sharing information is different from the original information to be shared, obtaining description information corresponding to the target sharing information, and converting the target sharing information according to the description information; (transcoding media content into a format suitable for a playback device by selecting a target media content format based on the attributes (e.g. resolution) for the intended playback device [Hanes: 0016; 0012-13], wherein the storage device 54 also comprises rules entered by a user which are used along with attributes to initiate transcoding of the media content to a target format [Hanes: 0017]);
and/or, D13: in responding to a determination that the first sharing information is the same as the original information to be shared, only sending the target sharing information to the receiving terminal; (when the media content saved at storage device 54 is in the appropriate format suitable for playback on a playback device 56, the content is transferred to the connected playback device for subsequent playback without the need of additional transcoding [Hanes: 0009-11]).
However, Hanes does not teach:
and providing editing functions for user after the conversion is completed, and the editing functions comprises selecting or cropping the information to be shared based on user’s need;
sending the description information to the receiving terminal;
and/or, before the operation A11, the method further comprises: selecting the information to be shared according to a selection operation, the selection operation comprising at least one of the following: voice controlling operation, selection operation on an interface, preset touch gesture on a screen, and preset remote control gesture.
In a similar field of endeavor transcoding live-action video, Vunic discloses:
and providing editing functions for user after the conversion is completed, and the editing functions comprises selecting or cropping the information to be shared based on user’s need; (segmenting (i.e. cropping) live video feeds into individual clips based on user preferences [Vunic: 0024; 0049; 0061] wherein the video-feed is transcoded to a plurality of encodings before event-segments are recorded and/or before event-segments are trimmed into video-segments [Vunic: 0067]).
sending the description information to the receiving terminal; (metadata is added to the trimmed video-clip that describes information about the video-segment [Vunic: 0025], wherein an event-segment is shown along with metadata describing the event-segment on an end-user’s mobile device [Vunic: 0071]);
and/or, before the operation A11, the method further comprises: selecting the information to be shared according to a selection operation, the selection operation comprising at least one of the following: voice controlling operation, selection operation on an interface, preset touch gesture on a screen, and preset remote control gesture; (in response to selection of specific content in a menu, another menu is transmitted to the registered device for display to show all available video-segments for the specific content [Vunic: 0064; 0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes in view of Vunic in order to provide editing functions after the conversion is completed, send description information to the receiving terminal, and utilize a user interface for content selection in the system of Hanes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes with Vunic as doing so would display metadata to allow viewers to be able to request to perform a UI selection to see any highlight they wish from the camera angle they prefer [Vunic: 0003; 0071].
However, Hanes-Vunic does not teach:
wherein before operation A10 or in the operation A11, the method further comprises: B10: obtaining filtering information; and B11: processing the information to be shared according to the filtering information, wherein before the operation A10 or in the operation A11, the method further comprises: processing a piece of information to be shared that does not meet a preset rule or a sharing condition according to a preset strategy, the preset strategy comprising at least one of the following: filtering out the piece of information, hiding the piece of information, setting the piece of information to an unselectable state, displaying a mark indicating sharing of the piece of the information not supported, and outputting prompt information.
In a similar field of endeavor involving modifying file formatting to improve compatibility with a recipient device, Cudak discloses:
wherein before operation A10 or in the operation A11, the method further comprises: B10: obtaining filtering information; and B11: processing the information to be shared according to the filtering information; (determine one or more configuration settings of the recipient's system at various levels, including at a hardware level, an operating system level, and an application level, compare the one or more file settings/characteristics with the one or more configuration settings of the recipient's system to determine whether the file is compatible with the recipient's system, and perform one or more compatibility actions associated with the file in response to determining that the file is not compatible with the recipient's system configuration [Cudak: 0081-85; 0067; 0006], wherein a compatibility action includes creating a plurality of different versions of a file where a version of the file corresponds to a version of a software application on a recipient's system used to access the file [Cudak: 0009]);
wherein before the operation A10 or in the operation A11, the method further comprises: processing a piece of information to be shared that does not meet a preset rule or a sharing condition according to a preset strategy, the preset strategy comprising at least one of the following: filtering out the piece of information, hiding the piece of information, setting the piece of information to an unselectable state, displaying a mark indicating sharing of the piece of the information not supported, and outputting prompt information; (performing a compatibility action which includes presenting a notification to a sender that one or more characteristics of a file are not compatible with one or more configuration settings of a recipient's system [Cudak: 0016; 0066]);
and/or, before the operation A11, the method further comprises: selecting the information to be shared according to a selection operation, the selection operation comprising at least one of the following: voice controlling operation, selection operation on an interface, preset touch gesture on a screen, and preset remote control gesture; (a sending user can select files for a recipient [Cudak: 0056; 0070], wherein hardware appliance of the file distribution module may include a graphical interface that attaches to a display [Cudak: 0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic in view of Cudak in order to process the information to be shared according to filtering information, and to notify a sender that file is not compatible with a recipient device in the system of Hanes-Vunic.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic with Cudak as doing so would consider additional recipient device characteristics thereby improving compatibility and ensures that the recipient is not presented with a broken or incomplete file, a warning, a message, or the like, which eliminates the recipient's frustration and eliminates unnecessary communications [Cudak: 0078], and would keep the user informed regarding compatibility issues.
With regard to Claim 5, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the filtering information comprises first type filtering information, the first type filtering information is obtained from the sending terminal;
and/or, the filtering information comprises second type filtering information, the second type filtering information is provided by the receiving terminal; (checking a recipient system's configuration report to determine one or more settings of the recipient's system at various levels, including at a hardware level, an operating system level, an application level, or the like. [Cudak: 0081-82]).
With regard to Claim 7, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches:
The method according to claim 5, further comprising: obtaining at least one piece of relevant information for selecting information to be shared, the relevant information defining requirements comprising at least one of data type requirement, file type requirement, presentation form requirement, content requirement, and display location information requirement; and automatically selecting information to be shared that meets the requirements according to the relevant information; (determining the supported format of playback device 71 is different from the format used to store the media content files, selecting an appropriate format, and performing transcoding by the storage device 54 [Hanes: 0019; 0012-13; 0016], wherein storage device 54 can automatically select an appropriate format for the playback device 71 and perform the transcoding process accordingly [Hanes: 0019]).
With regard to Claim 9, Hanes-Vunic teaches the method according to claim 2, but does not teach:
wherein the processing information is association information of the information to be shared, and the association information comprises at least one of the following: a current mode of the receiving terminal or a current mode of the sending terminal, sharing records of the sending terminal and/or sharing records of the receiving terminal.
In a similar field of endeavor involving modifying file formatting to improve compatibility with a recipient device, Cudak discloses:
wherein the processing information is association information of the information to be shared, and the association information comprises at least one of the following: a current mode of the receiving terminal or a current mode of the sending terminal, sharing records of the sending terminal and/or sharing records of the receiving terminal; (system module 204 creates and maintains a cross-reference table based on previous communications or interactions with the recipient [Cudak: 0065-67]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic in view of Cudak in order to utilize sharing records of the receiving terminal in the system of Hanes-Vunic.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic with Cudak as doing so would allow the system module 204 to determine the recipient's system configuration without any action by the user or the recipient [Cudak: 0065].
With regard to Claim 12, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the data type conversion parameters comprise at least one of the following: a data type and/or a file format of the information to be shared, a data type and/or a file format of processed information to be shared, time requirements, space requirements; (transcoding media content into a format suitable for a playback device by determining video formats supported by the playback device 71 [Hanes: 0016; 0019; 0012-13]);
and/or, the data type conversion parameters are determined according to selection operations of a user or system settings, wherein the time requirements are configured for selecting a data type conversion of a least time-consuming, and the space requirements are configured for minimizing a space occupied by the target sharing information.
With regard to Claim 15, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the method is executed by a server, and the target sharing information comprises at least one of the following: original information to be shared, processed information to be shared, a link address, and a logo; (determining the supported format of playback device 71 is different from the format used to store the media content files, selecting an appropriate format, and performing transcoding by the storage device 54 [Hanes: 0019; 0012-13; 0016]).
With regard to Claim 16, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the processing information comprises a file type; and processing the information to be shared comprises performing a file format conversion; (determining the supported format of playback device 71 is different from the format used to store the media content files, selecting an appropriate format, and performing transcoding by the storage device 54 [Hanes: 0019; 0012-13; 0016]).
With regard to Claim 17, Hanes-Vunic teaches the method according to claim 2, but does not teach:
wherein the processing information is association information of the information to be shared, and the association information comprises at least one of the following: a current mode of the receiving terminal or a current mode of the sending terminal, sharing records of the sending terminal and/or sharing records of the receiving terminal.
In a similar field of endeavor involving modifying file formatting to improve compatibility with a recipient device, Cudak discloses:
wherein the processing information is association information of the information to be shared, and the association information comprises at least one of the following: a current mode of the receiving terminal or a current mode of the sending terminal, sharing records of the sending terminal and/or sharing records of the receiving terminal; (system module 204 creates and maintains a cross-reference table based on previous communications or interactions with the recipient [Cudak: 0065-67]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic in view of Cudak in order to utilize sharing records of the receiving terminal in the system of Hanes-Vunic.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic with Cudak as doing so would allow the system module 204 to determine the recipient's system configuration without any action by the user or the recipient [Cudak: 0065].
With regard to Claim 18, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein operation of processing information to be shared comprises: performing the data type conversion comprises converting from a first data type to a second data type different from the first data type; (determining the stored media content is in a format (e.g. MPEG-2) that is different from the format used by the playback device 71 (e.g. MPEG-4) [Hanes: 0012]).
With regard to Claims 19-20, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claim 2 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claim. Accordingly, claims 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Claims 6 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 2008/0181578 A1) in view of Vunic et al. (US 2012/0219271 A1) in view of Cudak et al. (US 2017/0329595 A1) as applied to Claims 5 & 2 above, and further in view of Lindley et al. (US 10,911,380 B2).
With regard to Claim 6, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches the method according to claim 5, but does not teach:
wherein the first type filtering information comprises at least one of the following: authentication information of a current user of the sending terminal, permission information of the information to be shared, available traffic of the sending terminal, current network speed of the sending terminal, and a current mode of the sending terminal;
and/or the method further comprises at least one of the following: in determining that the authentication information of the current user of the sending terminal meets a preset requirement, performing operation B11; in determining that the permission information of the information to be shared meets another preset requirement, performing operation B11; and in determining that available traffic and/or a current network speed of the sending terminal does not meet a preset sending condition, and/or, in determining that the sending terminal is in a preset mode, processing the information to be shared according to a preset rule, wherein the preset mode comprises at least one of the following: a profile mode, an intelligent mode, a security mode, a guest mode, a child mode, and an elderly mode.
In a similar field of endeavor involving transmitting files to recipient devices, Lindley discloses:
wherein the first type filtering information comprises at least one of the following: authentication information of a current user of the sending terminal, permission information of the information to be shared, available traffic of the sending terminal, current network speed of the sending terminal, and a current mode of the sending terminal; (granting access to a plurality of recipients listed in an address list of the migrated email in accordance with certain predetermined permission information [Lindley: Claims 15 & 17]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic-Cudak in view of Lindley in order to utilize permission information of the information to be shared in the system of Hanes-Vunic-Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic-Cudak with Lindley as doing so would allow a single instance of a content file to be shared with multiple users by managing user permissions on a content server.
With regard to Claim 13, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches the method according to claim 2, but does not teach:
wherein operation A12 further comprises: in determining that there is a piece of information in the target sharing information that cannot be shared by a current first application, utilizing a second application different from the current first application to share the piece of information.
In a similar field of endeavor involving transmitting files to recipient devices, Lindley discloses:
in determining that there is a piece of information in the target sharing information that cannot be shared by a current first application, utilizing a second application different from the current first application to share the piece of information; (when the file size of the detected attachment file exceeds the predetermined attachment size limit, modifying the email by replacing the detected attachment in the email with a link to a copy of the detected attachment, and migrating the modified email to the target email platform [Lindley: 3:1-28]. Examiner notes that the attachment will be retrieved by the recipient utilizing the link and a second application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic-Cudak in view of Lindley in order to utilize a second application different from the current first application to share the piece of information in the system of Hanes-Vunic-Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic-Cudak with Lindley as doing so would provide a technique for circumventing maximum file size restrictions associated with various file transfer applications.
Claims 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 2008/0181578 A1) in view of Vunic et al. (US 2012/0219271 A1) in view of Cudak et al. (US 2017/0329595 A1) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Heck et al. (US 2005/0064883 A1).
With regard to Claim 8, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches the method according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein before operation A10, the method further comprises: determining whether a current information selection mode is a smart mode.
In a similar field of endeavor involving providing file transfer compatibility with legacy devices, Heck discloses:
wherein before operation A10, the method further comprises: determining whether a current information selection mode is a smart mode; and in determining that the current information selection mode is the smart mode, performing operation A10; (determining whether recipient subscriber 18 is operating in an MMS mode, and if not obtaining additional capabilities of the recipient device [Heck: 0029-32; Figs. 5-6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic-Cudak in view of Heck in order to determine whether a current information selection mode is a smart mode in the system of Hanes-Vunic-Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic-Cudak with Heck as doing so would enhance compatibility by identifying which mode a device is operating in prior to transmitting a message.
With regard to Claim 10, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches the method according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein before operation of sending the target sharing information and description information, the method further comprises: determining whether a current mode of the receiving terminal is a preset mode.
In a similar field of endeavor involving providing file transfer compatibility with legacy devices, Heck discloses:
wherein before operation of sending the target sharing information and description information, the method further comprises: determining whether a current mode of the receiving terminal is a preset mode; and in determining that the current mode of the receiving terminal is a preset mode, sending the target sharing information and description information; (determining whether recipient subscriber 18 is operating in an MMS mode, and if not transmitting a notification of a pending received message [Heck: 0029-32; Figs. 5-6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic-Cudak in view of Heck in order to determine whether a current mode of the receiving terminal is a preset mode in the system of Hanes-Vunic-Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic-Cudak with Heck as doing so would enhance compatibility by identifying which mode a device is operating in prior to transmitting a message.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 2008/0181578 A1) in view of Vunic et al. (US 2012/0219271 A1) in view of Cudak et al. (US 2017/0329595 A1) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Hannuksela et al. (US 2021/0227231 A1).
With regard to Claim 11, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches the method according to claim 2, but does not teach:
wherein the description information comprises at least one of the following: a data type of the target sharing information, a file format of the target sharing information, a size of the target sharing information, time information for processing the first sharing information, and execution body information for processing the first sharing information.
In a similar field of endeavor involving transcoding unsupported content (see ¶0226), Hannuksela discloses:
wherein the description information comprises at least one of the following: a data type of the target sharing information, a file format of the target sharing information, a size of the target sharing information, time information for processing the first sharing information, and execution body information for processing the first sharing information; (labelling content with the specific codecs indicated to render the contained media or the coding profile (e.g. HEVC Main profile) to which the bitstream contained by the samples of the track conform [Hannuksela: 0226]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic-Cudak in view of Hannuksela in order to send file format description information in the system of Hanes-Vunic-Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic-Cudak with Hannuksela as doing so would allow the receiving systems to determine if the codecs are supported by the end system, and if not, take appropriate action, which can be useful when the end system has limited resources, or the connection to the end systems has limited bandwidth [Hannuksela: 0224-26].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 2008/0181578 A1) in view of Vunic et al. (US 2012/0219271 A1) in view of Cudak et al. (US 2017/0329595 A1) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Stalin et al. (US 2008/0039051 A1).
With regard to Claim 14, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein operation D10 comprises:
D101: obtaining the first sharing information; (a computer records and saves media content on a storage device 54 for subsequent playback on a playback device 71 [Hanes: 0009-11]);
D102: obtaining processing information corresponding to the first sharing information, and detecting whether the processing information meets preset conditions; (examining a connected playback device 71 to determine supported video formats [Hanes: 0019; 0012-13; 0016]);
D103: in determining that the processing information corresponding to the first sharing information does not meet preset conditions, determining whether an execution body is the sending terminal; (determining whether the media content saved at storage device 54 is in the appropriate format suitable for playback on a playback device 56, or whether the media content needs to be transcoded according to attributes of the playback device 56 [Hanes: 0009-11]).
However, Hanes-Vunic-Cudak does not teach:
D104: in determining that the execution body is not the sending terminal but a server, taking the first sharing information as the target sharing information, thereby the execution body performs corresponding processing on the target sharing information according to the processing information.
In a similar field of endeavor involving detecting playback capabilities and converting files into supported formats, Stalin discloses:
D104: in determining that the execution body is not the sending terminal but a server, taking the first sharing information as the target sharing information, thereby the execution body performs corresponding processing on the target sharing information according to the processing information; (making a request to the attachment server 18 for data to be converted into a format that is based on a selected CODEC, and receiving data that has been converted from the attachment server 18 [Stalin: 0022; Fig. 3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanes-Vunic-Cudak in view of Stalin in order to provide a server as the execution body to perform processing on the target sharing information in the system of Hanes-Vunic-Cudak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hanes-Vunic-Cudak with Stalin as doing so would offload the converting process to a server thereby saving the computation at the end devices.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ow (US 2015/0371057 A1) which teaches a user interface with a share 330 button appearing next to each file and each folder available in the system to allow the user to easily share files, folders or both [0107; Fig. 3A], wherein the file sharing system is configured to conduct any appropriate media conversions and formatting to allow music and video files to be played via a standard media viewer/player or via a media viewer/player that may be provided with the file sharing system [0050].
Chaturvedi et al. (US 2020/0092370 A1) which teaches a document server converts a document_108a.xyz is to be converted into view/edit document type .abc and has multiple pages in its native format of .xyz, wherein communication devices 102 and 104 may both display a portion of the document 108a.xyz as represented by page_118a.abc enabling communication devices 102 and 104 to move between the pages 118a-118c, edit the pages 118a-118c, save edited pages, and otherwise view and manipulate the pages 118a-118c even though neither of the communication devices 102 and 104 can open the original document_108a.xyz [0047; 0054].
Osher et al. (US 2014/0375758 A1) which teaches modifying the original captured image based on the obtained display parameters of the recipient display device by performing image reduction, cropping, normalizing, image rotation and the like [0038-39] for purposes of avoiding needlessly using large amounts of bandwidth to send the entire image even though parts of the image may be cropped [0029-30].
Wang (US 2021/0342050 A1) which teaches determining whether the file type of the target file is the file type that the second application is able to process based on the correspondence [Fig. 7].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446