Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 8/29/2025. Claims 1, 7-8 and 11-12 were amended. Claims 1-12 are pending and are examined.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 8/29/2025, to claim(s) 7 and 8 correcting the claims to distinguish the instructions is sufficient to overcome the objection to the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, the objection to claim(s) 7 and 8 as filed in (3) of the Non-Final Office action filed 6/4/2025 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims under Fisher and Marchetto have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated from amending the independent claims 1, 11 and 12. The instant rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically argued in the Applicant's response.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is presented as below.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 20160283920 A1), in view of Marchetto (US 20190279173 A1), further in view of McGregor (US 10361866 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Fisher teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
generate content data; (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 (i.e. generate content data), which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54, then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55. The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56)
calculate a hash value of the content data [in response to generating the content data]; (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 , which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54 (i.e. calculate a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data), then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55. The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56)
transmit content information including the hash value to a management server that registers the content information in a blockchain; (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 , which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54, then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55 (i.e. transmit content information including the hash value to a management server that registers the content information in a blockchain). The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56)
receive a notification indicating that a process of registering the content information in the blockchain is completed; and (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 , which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54, then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55. The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56 (i.e. receive a notification indicating that a process of registering the content information in the blockchain is completed))
Fisher does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A content generation apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions to:
calculate a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data;
store, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain, relating to the content data in response to receipt of the notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marchetto discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A content generation apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions to: (Marchetto; Para(s). [0104]: electronic computer provided with memory)
calculate a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data; (Merchetto; Abstract: generating (1002) a digital asset file (302) containing the sub-set of identity information, wherein said step of selecting (1001) is performed either by the first or the second entity, said step of generation (1002) is performed after the step of selection (1001) and is performed by said first entity (100); a subsequent step of automatic generation (1003) of an hash file (301) of said digital asset file (302) (i.e. calculate a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data))
Marchetto is combinable with Fisher because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage in a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fisher to incorporate automatic generation of a hash of a digital asset file as in Marchetto in order to improve the functionality of the system by providing a means by which hashing of a digital file may occur automatically without user input.
Fisher and Marchetto do not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
store, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain, relating to the content data in response to receipt of the notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor, McGregor discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
store, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain, relating to the content data in response to receipt of the notification. (McGregor; Col. 12, Lines 15-26: The authenticated image file may comprise any combination of an authenticated image (i.e., the original image once it has been verified by the authentication server), authenticated image metadata (e.g., authentication server-provided or authentication server-approved timestamp, datestamp, and geographic data), and/or a watermarked image, the watermarked image being the authenticated image with a visual watermark affixed to it to represent that it has been verified by the authentication server (i.e., store, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain))
McGregor is combinable with Fisher and Marchetto because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage in a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fisher and Marchetto to incorporate indication of storage in a blockchain as in McGregor in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which information may be verified.
Regarding claim 2, Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor teach the limitations of claim 1.
Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an image capturing unit configured to perform image capturing a subject, (Fisher; Para(s). [0033]: A camera recording moving images (i.e. image capturing unit configured to perform image capturing a subject))
wherein the content data includes image data obtained by the image capturing unit performing image capturing the subject. (Fisher; Para(s). [0033]: A camera recording moving images (i.e. the content data includes image data obtained by the image capturing unit performing image capturing the subject))
Regarding claim 3, Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor teach the limitations of claim 2.
Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor teach the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the image data is still image data or video data. (Fisher; Para(s). [0033]: A camera recording moving images (i.e. video data))
Regarding claim 11, Fisher teaches the limitations of claim 11 substantially as follows:
A control method for a content generation apparatus, the control method comprising: generating content data; (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 (i.e. generate content data), which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54, then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55. The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56)
calculating a hash value of the content data [in response to generating the content data]; (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 , which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54 (i.e. calculate a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data), then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55. The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56)
transmitting content information including the hash value to a management server that registers the content information in a blockchain; (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 , which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54, then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55 (i.e. transmit content information including the hash value to a management server that registers the content information in a blockchain). The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56)
receiving a notification indicating that a process of registering the content information in the blockchain is completed; and (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 , which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54, then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55. The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56 (i.e. receive a notification indicating that a process of registering the content information in the blockchain is completed))
Fisher does not teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
calculating a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data;
storing, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain, relating to the content data in response to receipt of the notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marchetto discloses the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
calculating a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data; (Merchetto; Abstract: generating (1002) a digital asset file (302) containing the sub-set of identity information, wherein said step of selecting (1001) is performed either by the first or the second entity, said step of generation (1002) is performed after the step of selection (1001) and is performed by said first entity (100); a subsequent step of automatic generation (1003) of an hash file (301) of said digital asset file (302) (i.e. calculate a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data))
Marchetto is combinable with Fisher because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage in a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fisher to incorporate automatic generation of a hash of a digital asset file as in Marchetto in order to improve the functionality of the system by providing a means by which hashing of a digital file may occur automatically without user input.
Fisher and Marchetto do not teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
storing, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain, relating to the content data in response to receipt of the notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor, McGregor discloses the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
storing, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain, relating to the content data in response to receipt of the notification. (McGregor; Col. 12, Lines 15-26: The authenticated image file may comprise any combination of an authenticated image (i.e., the original image once it has been verified by the authentication server), authenticated image metadata (e.g., authentication server-provided or authentication server-approved timestamp, datestamp, and geographic data), and/or a watermarked image, the watermarked image being the authenticated image with a visual watermark affixed to it to represent that it has been verified by the authentication server (i.e., store, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain))
McGregor is combinable with Fisher and Marchetto because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage in a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fisher and Marchetto to incorporate indication of storage in a blockchain as in McGregor in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which information may be verified.
Regarding claim 12, Fisher teaches the limitations of claim 12 substantially as follows:
generating content data; (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 (i.e. generate content data), which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54, then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55. The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56)
calculating a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data; (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 , which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54 (i.e. calculate a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data), then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55. The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56)
transmitting content information including the hash value to a management server that registers the content information in a blockchain; (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 , which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54, then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55 (i.e. transmit content information including the hash value to a management server that registers the content information in a blockchain). The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56)
receiving a notification indicating that a process of registering the content information in the blockchain is completed; and (Fisher; Para(s). [0021]: The user then engages in acquiring of digital data 53 , which can be and digital data and/or digital content from any source. The user then creates hash file from digital data 54, then transmits hash file and/or hash blockchain to server 55. The user then receives transaction confirmation and/or identifier from server 56 (i.e. receive a notification indicating that a process of registering the content information in the blockchain is completed))
Fisher does not teach the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a control method for a content generation apparatus, the control method comprising:
calculating a hash value of the content data [in response to generating the content data];
storing, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain, relating to the content data in response to receipt of the notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marchetto discloses the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a control method for a content generation apparatus, the control method comprising: (Marchetto; Para(s). [0104]: electronic computer provided with memory)
calculating a hash value of the content data [in response to generating the content data]; (Merchetto; Abstract: generating (1002) a digital asset file (302) containing the sub-set of identity information, wherein said step of selecting (1001) is performed either by the first or the second entity, said step of generation (1002) is performed after the step of selection (1001) and is performed by said first entity (100); a subsequent step of automatic generation (1003) of an hash file (301) of said digital asset file (302) (i.e. calculate a hash value of the content data in response to generating the content data))
Marchetto is combinable with Fisher because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage in a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fisher to incorporate automatic generation of a hash of a digital asset file as in Marchetto in order to improve the functionality of the system by providing a means by which hashing of a digital file may occur automatically without user input.
Fisher and Marchetto do not teach the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
storing, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain, relating to the content data in response to receipt of the notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor, McGregor discloses the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
storing, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain, relating to the content data in response to receipt of the notification. (McGregor; Col. 12, Lines 15-26: The authenticated image file may comprise any combination of an authenticated image (i.e., the original image once it has been verified by the authentication server), authenticated image metadata (e.g., authentication server-provided or authentication server-approved timestamp, datestamp, and geographic data), and/or a watermarked image, the watermarked image being the authenticated image with a visual watermark affixed to it to represent that it has been verified by the authentication server (i.e., store, in the content data, registration-completed information indicating that the content information is registered in the blockchain))
McGregor is combinable with Fisher and Marchetto because all are from the same field of endeavor of secure information storage in a blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fisher and Marchetto to incorporate indication of storage in a blockchain as in McGregor in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which information may be verified.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 20160283920 A1), in view of Marchetto (US 20190279173 A1), further in view of McGregor (US 10361866 B1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Rae (US 20170116693 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor teach the limitations of claim 3.
Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor do not teach the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the video data is data including audio data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rae discloses the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the video data is data including audio data. (Rae; Para(s). [0077]: the creation may be represented in digital form, such as a media (e.g., image, video, audio) file(s) (i.e. the video data is data including audio data) and incorporation into the genesis block can include taking a hash of the media file(s))
Rae is combinable with Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor because all are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain based management of content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor to incorporate video files containing image and audio data as in Rae in order to expand the functionality of the system to video file types which include recorded audio information.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 20160283920 A1), in view of Marchetto (US 20190279173 A1), further in view of McGregor (US 10361866 B1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Imai (US 20180139056 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor teach the limitations of claim 1.
Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor do not teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a display,
wherein the at least one processor executes the instructions to cause the display to display the content data to which the registration-completed information is related so as to be distinguishable from the content data to which the registration-completed information is not related.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Imai discloses the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a display, (Imai; Para(s) [0116]: a list of service names, file names, and hash values (address information) of event information files is displayed on a display of the client terminal, so that the user may read the portal file)
wherein the at least one processor executes the instructions to cause the display to display the content data to which the registration-completed information is related so as to be distinguishable from the content data to which the registration-completed information is not related. (Imai; Para(s) [0116]: a list of service names, file names, and hash values (address information) of event information files is displayed on a display of the client terminal (i.e. display the content data to which the registration-completed information is related so as to be distinguishable from the content data to which the registration-completed information is not related), so that the user may read the portal file)
Imai is combinable with Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor because all are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain based management of content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor to incorporate a display interface for selecting and managing content as in Imai in order to improve the functionality of the system by providing a means by which content may be organized and managed by a user.
Regarding claim 6, Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai teach the limitations of claim 5.
Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein multiple pieces of content data including the content data to which the registration-completed information is related are stored in a storage device, and (Imai; Para(s) [0116]: a list of service names, file names, and hash values (address information) of event information files is displayed on a display of the client terminal (i.e. multiple pieces of content data including the content data to which the registration-completed information is related are stored in a storage device)
the at least one processor executes the instructions to cause the display to display the content data to which the registration-completed information is related among the multiple pieces of content data, in accordance with an instruction from a user. (Imai; Para(s) [0116]: a list of service names, file names, and hash values (address information) of event information files is displayed on a display of the client terminal (i.e. display the content data to which the registration-completed information is related among the multiple pieces of content data, in accordance with an instruction from a user), so that the user may read the portal file)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 5 is applicable to the instant claim.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 20160283920 A1), in view of Marchetto (US 20190279173 A1), further in view of McGregor (US 10361866 B1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Imai (US 20180139056 A1), further in view of Pasupula (US 20190164140 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai teach the limitations of claim 6.
Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai do not teach the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor executes the instructions to register the content data to which the registration-completed information is related among the multiple pieces of content data in favorites in accordance with a second instruction from the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pasupula discloses the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor executes the instructions to register the content data to which the registration-completed information is related among the multiple pieces of content data in favorites in accordance with a second instruction from the user. (Pasupula; Para(s). [0036]: User may save content to favorites in the content section (i.e. register the content data to which the registration-completed information is related among the multiple pieces of content data in favorites in accordance with an instruction from a user))
Pasupula is combinable with Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai because all are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain based management of content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai to incorporate management of content via selection of favorites or via deletion as in Pasupula in order to improve the functionality of the system by providing a means by which content may be customized by a user.
Regarding claim 8, Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai teach the limitations of claim 6.
Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai do not teach the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor executes the instructions to delete the content data to which the registration-completed information is related from the storage device in accordance with a third instruction from the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pasupula discloses the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor executes the instructions to delete the content data to which the registration-completed information is related from the storage device in accordance with a third instruction from the user. (Pasupula; Para(s). [0035]: provides access to content creators to their content which they can then edit, save or delete as they wish (i.e. delete the content data to which the registration-completed information is related from the storage device in accordance with an instruction from a user))
Pasupula is combinable with Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai because all are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain based management of content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai to incorporate management of content via selection of favorites or via deletion as in Pasupula in order to improve the functionality of the system by providing a means by which content may be customized by a user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 20160283920 A1), in view of Marchetto (US 20190279173 A1), further in view of McGregor (US 10361866 B1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Imai (US 20180139056 A1), further in view of Yamaguchi (US 20140210834 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai teach the limitations of claim 6.
Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai do not teach the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the storage device is configured to be insertable into and removable from the content generation apparatus, and
the at least one processor executes the instructions to, during a period from transmission of the content information to receipt of the notification, cause the display to display a notification cautioning not to insert or remove the storage device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamaguchi discloses the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the storage device is configured to be insertable into and removable from the content generation apparatus, and (Yamaguchi; Para(s). [0034]: the memory card can be attached to the mobile telephone. The memory card is, for example, microSD card (i.e. the storage device is configured to be insertable into and removable from the content generation apparatus))
the at least one processor executes the instructions to, during a period from transmission of the content information to receipt of the notification, cause the display to display a notification cautioning not to insert or remove the storage device. (Yamaguchi; Para(s). [0039]; Fig. 3: A message "Please do not remove the memory card" (i.e. display a notification cautioning not to insert or remove the storage device) is shown in each of the display screens (a) to (c) of FIG. 3 while the data transfer is performed (i.e. during a period from transmission of the content information to receipt of the notification))
Yamaguchi is combinable with Fisher, Marchetto, McGregor and Imai because all are from the same field of endeavor of management of digital content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of, and Imai to incorporate secure transfer of data to removable memory as in Yamaguchi in order to facilitate transfer of content.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 20160283920 A1), in view of Marchetto (US 20190279173 A1), further in view of McGregor (US 10361866 B1), as applied to independent claim 1, further in view of Yarimi (US 20210303401 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor teach the limitations of claim 1.
Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor do not teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, the at least one processor executes the instructions to, in a case of failure to store the registration-completed information relating to the content data, give a user a notification of a cause of the failure.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yarimi discloses the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The content generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, the at least one processor executes the instructions to, in a case of failure to store the registration-completed information relating to the content data, give a user a notification of a cause of the failure. (Yarimi; Para(s). [0036] & [0049]: if the write operation is not successful (i.e. in a case of failure to store the registration-completed information relating to the content data) due to a storage device I/O error resulting from a failure of the write operation associated with the target storage device (negative result in block 202), notification of the storage device I/O error will be received by the API layer (i.e. give a user a notification of a cause of the failure))
Yarimi is combinable with Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor because all are from the same field of endeavor of management of content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Fisher, Marchetto and McGregor to incorporate notification in case of write error as in Yarimi in order to improve the functionality of the system by providing a means by which failed operations are detected and reported.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Adler (US 8839224 B2) which teaches receiving, at the electronic device, an update indication from a server that updated software is available for the electronic device. The updated software is received, at the electronic device, during operation in the update mode. The method further includes initiating, upon determining the updated software has been correctly received, operation of the electronic device in a normal mode.
Ramirez (US 10341309 B1) which teaches cryptographically protecting data transferred between spatially distributed computing devices.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, claims 1-12 are rejected.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights