DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-14 have been amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is in response to the applicant’s response received on 08/01/2025, for the non-final office action mailed on 05/01/2025.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraph numbers, or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended claim invention are not directed to a mental process, see applicant’s remarks pp. 8-9. Examiner respectfully disagrees as generating image data corresponding to the web page relates to insignificant extra-solution display activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g), acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal; acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and transmitting, to the communication terminal, the image data corresponding to the web page; transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information enabling the communication terminal to download the file; transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information indicating a download failure relates to insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant argues the claimed invention avoids the occurrence of useless downloads, see applicant’s remarks pp. 9-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claimed inventions steps can be performed by a human when downloading an image and comparing the image size to the storage size on their computer and deciding not to download the image size if there is no more room for the image to be downloaded.
Applicant further argues the limitations are not well-understood, routine or conventional, see applicant’s remarks pp. 11-12. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the limitations acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal; acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g). These additional elements amount to well-understood, routine activities as seen in court cases Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). The claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues the claimed invention is are necessarily rooted in computer technology and are not directed to an abstract idea, see applicant’s remarks pp. 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees the claim is directed to an abstract idea regarding claim limitations determining a free space of the image generation system; comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded; comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded; if the free space of the image generation system is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded and the free space of the communication terminal is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded, performing control to: if at least one of the free space of the image generation system and the free space of the communication terminal is less than the size of the file to be downloaded performing control to. Comparing can be done by a human checking the space remaining on a disk drive and checking the size of the file and comparing whether or not there is enough space for the downloaded file. Furthermore, acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal; acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Examiner has determined that claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 10is directed to a method and claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claims1, 10 and 11 recites determining a free space of the image generation system; comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded; comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded; if the free space of the image generation system is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded and the free space of the communication terminal is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded, performing control to: if at least one of the free space of the image generation system and the free space of the communication terminal is less than the size of the file to be downloaded performing control to:. That is, other than a generic computer, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally. For example, a user can determine not to download a file if they see that the free space is less than the size of the file to be downloaded. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the category of an abstract idea for a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 10 and 11 recites an information processing system including an image generation system configured to communicate with a communication terminal, the information processing system comprising: one or more processors, and at least one memory storing executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the image generation system to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the communication terminal, information for accessing a web page; obtaining the web page for the external web server based on the information for accessing the web page; generating image data corresponding to the web page; transmitting, to the communication terminal the image data corresponding to the web page; receiving, from the communication terminal which is displaying the image data corresponding to the web page, a request to download a file corresponding to the web page; acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal; acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded; download the file from the external web server; and transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information enabling the communication terminal to download the file; not download the file from the external web server; and transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information indicating a download failure. Claim limitation an information processing system including an image generation system configured to communicate with a communication terminal, the information processing system comprising:
the image generation system, wherein the image generation system includes relates to field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); one or more processors; and at least one memory storing executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the image generation system to perform operations comprising relates to generic computing component being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), receiving, from the communication terminal, information for accessing a web page; obtaining the web page from an external web server based on the information for accessing the web page; receiving, from the communication terminal which is displaying the image data corresponding to the web page, a request to download a file corresponding to the web page; acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal; acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded; download the file from the external web server; not download the file from the external web server, these limitation relate to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), generating image data corresponding to the web page relates to insignificant extra-solution display activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), transmitting, to the communication terminal, the image data corresponding to the web page; transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information enabling the communication terminal to download the file; transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information indicating a download failure relates to insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The concept described in claims 1, 10 and 11 are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. Dependent claims 2 and 3 are further related to metal process regarding element being pressed and insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering when inquiring (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 4 further relates insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering when acquiring information (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), determining the free space is greater than the size of the file relates to an abstract idea and downloading relates to data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 5 relates to field of use/technological environment regarding a URL (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and notifying relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 6 relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 7 relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data output and display (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 8 relates to an abstract idea determining URL received and downloading relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 9 relates to data outputting and displaying which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 12 recites relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 13 recites an abstract idea. Claim 14 recites technical use/technological environment , see MPEP 2106.05(h). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of these claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The same analysis applies here in step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in step 2B. The additional elements amount to well-understood, routine activities as seen in court cases Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al. (US-PGPBU-NO: 2018/0309817 A1) hereinafter Agrawal, in further view of Li et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2023/0236946 A1) hereinafter Li and Makela (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0180937 A1).
As per claim 1, Agrawal teaches an information processing system including an image generation system configured to communicate with a communication terminal (see Agrawal paragraph [0016], “Among other components not shown, system 100 includes a web browser 110 executing on a user device, a data management server 112, a data cache 114, and a network 116. System 100 may interact with a web server 118, although web server 118 is not necessarily included as a component of system 100. In an embodiment, system 100 does not include web browser 110 or network 116, but interacts with, or by way of, web browser 110 and network 116”), the information processing system comprising: the image generation system, wherein the image generation system includes: one or more processors; and at least one memory the storing executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors (see Agrawal paragraph [0046], “With reference to FIG. 7, computing device 700 includes a bus 710 that directly or indirectly couples the following devices: memory 712, one or more processors 714, one or more presentation components 716, input/output (I/O) ports 718, input/output components 720, and an illustrative power supply 722”), cause the image generation system to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the communication terminal, information for accessing a web page (see Agrawal paragraph [0020], “When web browser 110 determines that the user is utilizing a data-limited connection, then rather than sending the request to web server 118, web browser 110 sends the user request to data management server 112, which serves as a substitute, or an intermediary or proxy, between web browser 110 and web server 118”); obtaining the web page from an external web server based on the information for accessing the web page (see Agrawal paragraph [0020], “Data management server 112 also obtains web page 200 from web server 118”); generating image data corresponding to the web page (see Agrawal paragraph [0020], “When low-fidelity versions of the images have not previously been cached, then data management server 112 retrieves the original-fidelity images and generates the low-fidelity versions of the images and saves the low-fidelity versions in the cache”); transmitting, to the communication terminal, the image data corresponding to the web page (see Agrawal paragraph [0020], “provides the web page to web browser 110, but with the low-fidelity versions of the images provided in place of the original-fidelity images, as depicted in FIG. 3”).
Agrawal does not explicitly teach receiving, from the communication terminal which is displaying the image data corresponding to the web page, a request to download a file corresponding to the web page; determining a free space of the image generation system; acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal; acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded; comparing the free space of the image generation system with the size of the file to be downloaded; comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded; if the free space of the image generation system is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded and the free space of the communication terminal is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded, performing control to: download the file from the external web server; and transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information enabling the communication terminal to download the file. However, Li teaches receiving, from the communication terminal which is displaying the image data corresponding to the web page, a request to download a file corresponding to the web page (see Li paragraph [0085], “In the exemplary embodiment, the daemon 509 may initiate a task to pull an image file from a registry 515 to local storage 511 of a host node 501 (where the host node 501 lacks the pulled image 519) when the current local time+the maximum recorded download time of the image file+a pre-defined download buffer time is less than or equal to a predicted start time for the future workload”); determining a free space of the image generation system (see Li paragraph [0085], “Disk utilization module 707 may compare the amount of free space on local storage 511”); acquiring, from the communication terminal, information indicating a free space of the communication terminal (see Li paragraph [0086], “For example, host nodes 501 may be ordered in a list of nodes by the amount of available CPU or processing power, memory, free disk space on local storage 511, and/or a combination of resources thereof”); acquiring, from the external web server, information indicating a size of the file to be downloaded (see Li paragraph [0087], “The disk utilization module 707 may be assigned a target value describing a target amount of free space within local storage 511 that may need to be available as a result of the disk utilization process. The target value for the free space may be set as an amount of free space equal to or exceeding the size of an image that is being pulled to local storage 511 for the future workload”); comparing the free space of the image generation system with the size of the file to be downloaded (see Li paragraph [0088], “Disk utilization module 707 may compare the amount of free space on local storage 511 against the target value of free space”); comparing the free space of the communication terminal with the size of the file to be downloaded (see Li paragraph [0088], “Disk utilization module 707 may compare the amount of free space on local storage 511 against the target value of free space”); if the free space of the image generation system is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded and the free space of the communication terminal is greater than the size of the file to be downloaded, performing control to: download the file from the external web server; and transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information enabling the communication terminal to download the file (see Li paragraph [0098], “In step 831, the optimization module 510 may determine whether the amount of free space on the host node 501 is greater than the image size for the image file required to deploy the future workload. If it is determined that the free space on the node is greater than the image size, method 800 may proceed to step 835. During step 835, a determination may be made whether or not requisite network I/O of the selected host node 501 is satisfied. For example, determining whether or not host node 501 is able to successfully pull the image file from a registry 515 before a deadline for deploying the future workload”).
Agrawal and Li are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal’s teaching of selective consumption of web page data over data-limited connection with Li’s teaching of storage management and usage optimization using workload trends to incorporate checking storage size and comparing it with the content size to optimize data consumption over data-limited connections, see Li paragraph [0077], “For example, as shown in FIG. 6, the optimization module 510 may be a component of the managing node 601. Embodiments of the optimization module 510 may be responsible for managing and optimizing retrieval of image files and storage thereof by host nodes 501 and/or managing nodes 601 thereof. Image management and retrieval may be optimized by intelligently analyzing workload trends of the container system, downloading requested images and data automatically predicted to be used at a future point in time and cleaning up images from local storage 511 predicted to not be used for an extended period of time or may not be used again at all.”
Li teaches in paragraph [0088], “When the amount of free space is still less than the target value following deletion of a pulled image 519, disk utilization module 707 may continue to iteratively delete the last pulled image in the ordered list and check the resulting free space against the target value for free space. Upon meeting and/or exceeding the target value, the disk utilization process of the disk utilization module 707 may end, and the daemon 509 can pull the image file for the upcoming future workload from registry 515 to local storage 511” but Agrawal modified with Li do not explicitly teach if at least one of the free space of the image generation system and the free space of the communication terminal is less than the size of the file to be downloaded, performing control to: not download the file from the external web server; and transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information indicating a download failure. However, Makela teaches if at least one of the free space of the image generation system and the free space of the communication terminal is less than the size of the file to be downloaded, performing control to: not download the file from the external web server; and transmit, to the communication terminal in response to the request, information indicating a download failure (see Makela paragraph [0061], “In step 5.7 it is calculated whether or not the effectively available memory space is smaller than the size of the file to be downloaded. If the effectively available memory space is not smaller than the size of the file to be downloaded the subroutine returns at B to the flowchart of FIG. 4A. If the effectively available memory space is smaller than the size of the file to be downloaded an error note (step 5.8) is displayed: "Not enough memory space, available, download, attempt cancelled"”).
Agrawal, Li and Makela are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal’s teaching of selective consumption of web page data over data-limited connection and Li’s teaching of storage management and usage optimization using workload trends with Makela’s teaching of operating a user interface of a computer terminal capable of running multiple downloads, uploads and print jobs simultaneously to incorporate checking whether there is enough space to download a file and being able to display information about the transactions , see Makela paragraph [0012], “The present invention also provides a method for operating a graphical user interface of a computer terminal running multiple asynchronous simultaneous tasks that each can go through one or more given changes in status, comprising the steps of: monitoring the status of said tasks, displaying a window with a list with information regarding the status of the tasks, and displaying a confirmation dialog indicating that the task concerned has changed status if the list contains information regarding more than one task or if the list has not been visible throughout the progress of the task concerned, when the task concerned changes status.”
As per claim 2, Agrawal modified with Li and Makela teaches wherein the request to download the file is based on an element pressed a user on the image data corresponding to the web page displayed on the communication terminal being a file download element (see Makela paragraph [0056], “Referring now to FIG. 5 the subroutine for checking the available memory space is described. In step 5.1 it is checked if the file that the user requests to download is not already on the list of downloads. If the file is already on the list an error message is shown (step 5.2) "File already in download, new download attempt cancelled"”), and wherein the image generation system performs the acquiring of the information indicating the free space of the communication terminal based on the request (see Li paragraph [0086], “For example, host nodes 501 may be ordered in a list of nodes by the amount of available CPU or processing power, memory, free disk space on local storage 511, and/or a combination of resources thereof”).
As per claim 3, Agrawal modified with Li and Makela teaches wherein the request to download the file is based on an element pressed by a user on the image data corresponding to the web page displayed on the communication terminal being a file download element (see Makela paragraph [0045], “While being connected to a remote server via the browser the user can initiate (step 4.1) a download by activating a hyperlink that activates a download”), and wherein the image generation system performs the acquiring of the information indicating the size of the file to be downloaded based on the request (see Li paragraph [0087], “The disk utilization module 707 may be assigned a target value describing a target amount of free space within local storage 511 that may need to be available as a result of the disk utilization process. The target value for the free space may be set as an amount of free space equal to or exceeding the size of an image that is being pulled to local storage 511 for the future workload”).
As per claim 4, Agrawal modified with Li and Makela teaches wherein determining the free space of the image generation system includes acquiring information on the free space of the image generation system (see Makela paragraph [0061], “In step 5.7 it is calculated whether or not the effectively available memory space is smaller than the size of the file to be downloaded. If the effectively available memory space is not smaller than the size of the file to be downloaded the subroutine returns at B to the flowchart of FIG. 4A”).
As per claim 6, Agrawal modified with Li and Makela teaches wherein the information indicating the download failure comprises information indicating that the image generation has not downloaded the file from the external web server (see Makela paragraph [0061], “If the effectively available memory space is smaller than the size of the file to be downloaded an error note (step 5.8) is displayed: "Not enough memory space, available, download, attempt cancelled"”).
As per claim 7, Agrawal modified with Li and Makela teaches wherein the communication terminal includes a display, on a screen, the information indicating the download failure is received from the image generation system, the information indicating the download failure, on a screen (see Makela paragraph [0061], “If the effectively available memory space is smaller than the size of the file to be downloaded an error note (step 5.8) is displayed: "Not enough memory space, available, download, attempt cancelled"”).
As per claim 10, this is the method claim to system claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 11, this is the non-transitory computer readable storage claim to method claim 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 12, Agrawal modified with Li and Makela teaches wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the image generation system to perform operations comprising: storing, in a log, information indicating whether a download was prevented due to an insufficient free space of the communication terminal (see Makela paragraph [0061], “If the effectively available memory space is smaller than the size of the file to be downloaded an error note (step 5.8) is displayed: "Not enough memory space, available, download, attempt cancelled"”).
As per claim 13, Li modified with Makela teaches wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the image generation system to perform operations comprising: when the free space of the communication terminal is insufficient, transmitting, to the communication terminal, a recommendation suggesting deletion of unnecessary files to secure an additional free space (see Li paragraph [0101], “In step 863, disk utilization module 707 may delete the locally stored image from the ordered list of pulled images 519 predicted to have a workload start time scheduled to run furthest in time from a current point in time. Upon deleting the pulled image 519 from the local storage in step 863, a check may be performed in step 865 comparing whether or not free space of the local storage is less than the target amount of free space. If the amount of free space remains less than the target amount of free, the disk utilization module 707 may return to step 863 and delete from the remaining pulled images 519 in the ordered list predicted to have a workload start time that is scheduled to run furthest in time from the current point in time”).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US-PGPBU-NO: 2018/0309817 A1) , Li (US-PGPUB-NO: 2023/0236946 A1) and Makela (US-PGPUB-NO: 2015/0180937 A1), in further view of Dhanabalan et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2021/0318990 A1) hereinafter Dhanabalan.
As per claim 5, Agrawal modified with Li and Makela do not explicitly teach wherein the information enabling the communication terminal to download the file comprises a storage destination uniform resource locator (URL) indicating a location where the downloaded file is stored on the image generation system, and wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the image generation system to perform the operations comprising: transmitting the file to the communication terminal in response to receiving the storage destination URL from the communication terminal. However, Dhanabalan teaches wherein the information enabling the communication terminal to download the file comprises a storage destination uniform resource locator (URL) indicating a location where the downloaded file is stored on the image generation system, and wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the image generation system to perform the operations comprising: transmitting the file to the communication terminal in response to receiving the storage destination URL from the communication terminal (see Dhanabalan paragraph [0085], “In some embodiments, for example, the download token may be appended to a URL that resolves to an IP address of the webserver(s) of the storage system 508. Access to a given file 502 may thus, for example, be enabled by a “download link” that includes the URL/token. Such a download link may, for example, be sent the logged-in client 202 in the form of a “DOWNLOAD” button or other user-interface element the user can select to effect the transfer of the file 502 from the storage system 508 to the client 202”).
Agrawal, Li, Makela and Dhanabalan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal’s teaching of selective consumption of web page data over data-limited connection, Li’s teaching of storage management and usage optimization using workload trends and Makela’s teaching of operating a user interface of a computer terminal capable of running multiple downloads, uploads and print jobs simultaneously with Dhanabalan’s teaching of having a unified file storage system to incorporate the use of URL for storage control for better management of storage systems , see Dhanabalan paragraph [0078], “In any of the forgoing scenarios, the request sent to the storage control server(s) 204b may, in some embodiments, include a uniform resource locator (URL) that resolves to an internet protocol (IP) address of the storage control server(s) 204b, and the token may be appended to or otherwise accompany the URL. Accordingly, providing access to one or more clients 202 may be accomplished, for example, by causing the authorized client 202a to send a request to the URL address, or by sending an email, text message or other communication including the token-containing URL to the unauthorized client 202b, either directly from the access management server(s) 204a or indirectly from the access management server(s) 204a to the authorized client 202a and then from the authorized client 202a to the unauthorized client 202b. In some embodiments, selecting the URL or a user interface element corresponding to the URL, may cause a request to be sent to the storage control server(s) 204b that either causes a file 502 to be downloaded immediately to the client that sent the request, or may cause the storage control server 204b to return a webpage to the client that includes a link or other user interface element that can be selected to effect the download.”
As per claim 8, Agrawal modifieid with Li, Makela and Dhanabalan teaches wherein the information enabling the communication terminal to download the file comprises a storage destination uniform resource locator (URL) and wherein the communication terminal downloads the file using the storage destination URL received form the image generation system (see Dhanabalan paragraph [0085], “Such a download link may, for example, be sent the logged-in client 202 in the form of a “DOWNLOAD” button or other user-interface element the user can select to effect the transfer of the file 502 from the storage system 508 to the client 202”).
As per claim 9, Agrawal modified with Li, Makela and Dhanabalan teaches wherein the communication terminal includes a display unit configured to display information indicating a download success on a screen after the file is downloaded from the storage unit URL (see Makela paragraph [0062], “With reference to FIG. 6 a first embodiment of the procedure upon completion of a download is illustrated. In step 6.1 one of the downloads finishes. In step 6.2 it is determined if the list of downloads in the information window 30 is presently visible. The visibility is considered to be positive if the information window 30 is the topmost window. If list is visible indeed, the downloaded file is passed to the document handler for viewing (step 6.3)”).
As per claim 14, Li modified with Makela and Dhanabalan teaches wherein the image generation system is configured to perform the acquiring the information indicating the free space of the communication terminal and comparison of the free space and a file size using encrypted communication between the image generation system and the communication terminal (see Dhanabalan paragraph [0046], “In some implementations, the primary client device 108 (e.g., the mobile client 108c) may establish a connection with one or more secondary devices (e.g., the laptop client 108b) to stream or otherwise transfer the corresponding part of the content of the “split” file to the primary device. In some implementations, a shared encryption token may be obtained from the unified storage management system 102 to protect the privacy of the information transferred from the secondary device to the primary device”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roeger et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2019/0166226 A1) teaches data processing using pre-emptive downloading.
Tanaka (US-PGPUB-NO: 2003/0137691 A1) teaches a printing process of print target data downloaded from a web server using a plug-in, which can run from a browser.
Murai et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2006/0179135 A1) teaches data communication for managing information comprising size information of content data wanting to be downloaded.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENIN PAULINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1734. The examiner can normally be reached Week 1: Mon-Thu 7:30am - 5:00pm Week 2: Mon-Thu 7:30am - 5:00pm and Fri 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. 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.
/LENIN PAULINO/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197