DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are being rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., disregarding the file extension when detecting a duplicate filename between the source and destination locations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner notes that the claim amendment recites “regardless of whether an extension of a file with the same base name in the transfer destination is same as or different from any extensions of the first files”. However, disregarding the file extension is not equivalent as regardless. "Regardless" is an adverb meaning "anyway" or "in spite of," while "disregard" is a verb or noun meaning to ignore or show lack of attention. The examiner thanks applicants of providing [0094] as support for the amendment. The examiner notes that [0094] discloses that step 311 (in fig. 3,) may execute step S309 without executing step S311 (Do extension of file to be transferred and extension of file on server match?). Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant’s amendment recites “regardless of whether an extension of a file with the same base name in the transfer destination is same as or different from any extensions of the first files” with respect to collectively change the base name of the first files to a different base name.
Prior art Cazier discloses in [0018], [0034]-[0035], detecting duplicate files based on the same base name and determining whether they are different files using meta-data stored in file such as the time the file was created, the size of the image, location the image was captured, image data. Thus, Cazier teaches “collectively change the base name of the first files to a different base name” when a same base name conflict exists.
Importantly, Cazier’s comparison tool does not rely on file extension when determining whether files are the same or different. As asserted in the applicant’s remarks on page 2, Upon determining that the two files share the same base name but are different files, Cazier renames the file with the duplicate file name. Cazier uses file meta-data (e.g., the time the file was created, the size of the image, location the image was captured, image data) which operates independently of the file extension. Because file extension is not a limiting factor in Cazier’s determination, the described renaming operation inherently occurs regardless of whether the extensions are the same or different.
In other words, since Cazier does not condition its renaming or comparison on file extension, it necessarily encompasses scenarios where 1) the extensions are the same, and 2) the extensions are different. Therefore, the amendment does not overcome the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Cazier (US 2003/0200229) and in view of Raff (US 2006/0265425) and in view of Matsuki (US 2006/0174054).
Re Claim 1, Cazier discloses a file transfer apparatus, comprising:
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not a plurality of files to be transferred, each of which has a file name including a basename, includes first files having a same base name, wherein the base name of the first files is also a same base name as a base name of any file in a transfer destination ([0017]-[0018], image file transfers from camera are initiated. Will determine if a file name is a duplicate fil name at the destination location. [0019], transfer file names, a001.jpg, a0002.jpg, b002.jpg. “a” and “b” are part of the basename),
a rename unit configured to, in a case where it is determined that the first files to be transferred includes the first files, regardless of whether an extension of a file with the same base name in the transfer destination is same as or different from any extensions of the first files, collectively change the base name of the first files to a different base name so that the different base name is the same for each of the first files ([0018]-[0019], [0034]-[0035], detecting duplicate files based on the same base name and determining whether they are different files using meta-data stored in file such as the time the file was created, the size of the image, location the image was captured, image data. After determining the two files share the same base name but are different files, Cazier renames the file with the duplicate file name (e.g. a002.jpg from the source location is renamed b002.jpg).
While Cazier discloses in [0018], system checks the names of the files being transferred with the names of the files already at the destination location, determines the file is a different file with a duplicate name, the system will automatically rename one of the files to a name not already in the directory, Cazier does not clearly disclose one or more processors that execute a program stored in a memory, a transfer unit configured to transfer the plurality of files to be transferred to the transfer destination in a state in which no first file exists in the plurality of files to be transferred.
In the same field of endeavor, Raff discloses disclose one or more processors that execute a program stored in a memory ([0057], software stored in memory processed by a processor), a transfer unit configured to transfer the plurality of files to be transferred to the transfer destination in a state in which the plurality of files to be transferred do not include any file having a base name that is the same as any base name of a file in the transfer destination ([0044], the process determines if there is an exact match between the two media files during the copying process. If there is not an exact match, the process copies the first media file to the destination location).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Cazier’s automatic renaming of duplicate files with Raff’s renaming of duplicate files to transfers the files to the destination without the need to rename if there are no duplicate files. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to establish a more efficient system by being able to transfer files without renaming them if there is no need.
While Cazier discloses a plurality of files to be transferred, each of which has a file including a basename and renaming the files with a different basename, Cazier and Raff do not clearly disclose the plurality of files, each of which includes determining the files having a base name and an extension, includes first files having a same base name and different extensions.
In the same field of endeavor, Matsuki discloses in [0008] digital cameras generate a plurality of associated files that have identical number assigned while simultaneously records data files using the same filename by different extensions. [0059] discloses a "same filename with different extensions mode" selection check box is provided to make the user specify the method of assigning new filenames for files to be renamed such as RAW data, JPEG data, and the like, which have the same filename except for their extensions. If the "same filename with different extensions mode" selection check box 402 is checked, the same filename with different extensions mode is turned on, and new filenames for files to be renamed which have the same filename except for their extensions are generated to have the same new filename except for their extensions.
the plurality of files, each of which includes determining the files having a base name and an extension, includes first files having a same base name and different extensions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Cazier and Raff’s renaming of files with Matsuki’s renaming of files which includes consideration of data files that are associated with each other that have the same filename but different extensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to establish a more efficient system by being assigning new filenames for files to be renamed to the same filename with different extensions.
Re Claim 5, Cazier discloses wherein in a case where it is determined that in the plurality of files to be transferred includes the first files, the determination unit further determines whether or not the file having a same file name as any of the first files exists in the transfer destination, the rename unit, in a case where it is determined that a file having the same file name as any of the first files exists in the transfer destination, collectively changes the base name of the first files, and the transfer unit transfers the plurality of files to be transferred to the transfer destination in a state in which the plurality of files do not include any file of which a file name is a same file name as any file name in the transfer destination ([0018]-[0019], the system will check names and determine if the same duplicate file names are in the destination and will rename the files from the source location so it will not be a duplicate file in the destination location.).
Re Claim 6, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Cazier and Raff for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Matsuki discloses wherein the first files are related to each other ([0008], cameras generate a plurality of associated file that have an identical number assigned with associated files but have different extensions).
Re Claim 7, Cazier does not specifically disclose, however Raff discloses wherein the plurality of files to be transferred are DCF files having a base name compliant with a Design rule for Camera File system (DCF) standard ([0034]-[0035], determines if the file structure on the card conforms to Design rule for Camera File (DCF). One of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to incorporate Cazier’s file renaming Raff for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 8, Cazier does not specifically disclose, however Raff discloses wherein the base name includes free characters and a DCF number, and the first files have same free characters and DCF number ([0042], digital images are DCF compliant and determine whether there is a duplicate file in a format that is NNNAAAAA, where N is a numeric character and A is an alpha character, which provides appropriate information on whether both media files being compared are from the same directory and file location.) One of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to incorporate Cazier’s file renaming Raff for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claims 9 and 10, they are similar to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Cazier and in view of Raff and in view of Matsuki and in view of Lee (US 2013/0311178).
Re Claim 2, Cazier discloses [0018], system checks the names of the files being transferred with the names of the files already at the destination location. If it determines the file is a different file with a duplicate name, the system will automatically rename one of the files to a name not already in the directory. In addition, Raff discloses [0044], the process determines if there is an exact match between the two media files during the copying process. If there is not an exact match, the process copies the first media file to the destination location. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known since the end result is to automatically rename one of the files to a name not already in the directory, it would have been obvious the renaming of the file could be renamed again if it is determined that the file still has a same name in the destination location.
While Cazier, Raff, and Matsuki disclose renaming files, Cazier, Raff, and Matsuki do not clearly disclose wherein the rename unit substitutes an original base name for a temporary base name to rename the first file(s), the determination unit further determines whether or not a file having a temporary base name to be used exists in the transfer destination, and the rename unit changes the temporary base name to be used in a case where it is determined that a file having the temporary base name to be used exists in the transfer destination.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses in [0140]-[0144] temporary file names for storing files. In [0161]-[0164], Lee discloses that the recommended file name exists a duplicate file name and if modification is wanted.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Cazier, Raff and Matsuki’s automatic renaming of duplicate files with Lee’s naming of files to be temporary in order to check if there is a duplicate file name already. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to modify the name if there is a duplicate file name
Re Claim 3, Cazier discloses wherein the rename unit creates the temporary base name based on the original base name ([0019], when it is determined the destination location contains the same named file, the image a002.jpg from the source location is renamed b002.jpg. The suffix of the original base name is kept, only the prefix “a” and “b” is changed).
Re Claim 4, Cazier discloses wherein the rename unit creates the temporary base name by adding specific characters at a specific position of the original base name ([0032], Changing the first letter in the file name is only an example of a way to change the file names. There are many ways to change file names and retain their sequential display order and this invention is not limited to only changing the first letter). In addition, Raff discloses in [0050] of post-pending the file names with the same name with a letter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HO T SHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3089. 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.
/HO T SHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
HO T. SHIU
Examiner
Art Unit 2443
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443