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 .
1. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 17-19 are amended as filed on 04/29/2024.
Claim 20 is new as filed on 04/29/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang Xiyun (CN110289947), hereinafter Liang.
2. With respect to claim 1, Liang taught a data transmission method (claim 1, line 1), comprising: obtaining, by a first terminal, data to be transmitted (claim 1, lines 4-6); determining, by the first terminal, a first digest information of the data to be transmitted (claim 6, lines 1-3), wherein the first digest information represents fixed-length encrypted information related to the data to be transmitted (page 6, lines 6-10, where MD5 is fixed length); and sending, by the first terminal, the first digest information and the data to be transmitted to a second terminal, so that the second terminal verifies validity of received data according to the first digest information (claim 6, lines 7-8, where the determination to allow the receiver to receive the data implicitly teaches the validity determination).
3. Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Liang taught wherein the determining, by the first terminal, first digest information of the data to be transmitted, comprises: determining, by the first terminal, the first digest information of the data to be transmitted according to a message digest algorithm (claim 6, lines 1-6).
4. Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Liang taught wherein the obtaining, by a first terminal, data to be transmitted comprises: receiving, by the first terminal, a transmission instruction input by a user in a display page, and determining, by the first terminal, the data to be transmitted according to the transmission instruction (claim 6, lines 7-8, where the determination to allow the receiver to receive the data implicitly teaches the validity determination).
5. With respect to claim 7, Liang taught a data transmission method (claim 1, line 1), comprising receiving, by a second terminal, a first digest information and data sent by a first terminal (claim 6, lines 1-6); determining, by the second terminal, a second digest information of received data (claim 6, lines 1-6); and verifying, by the second terminal, validity of the received data according to a comparison result of the first digest information and the second digest information (claim 6, lines 7-8, where the determination to allow the receiver to receive the data implicitly teaches the validity determination).
6. Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. In addition, Liang taught wherein the determining, by the second terminal, a second digest information of the received data comprises: determining, by the second terminal, the second digest information of the received data according to a message digest algorithm (claim 6, lines 1-8).
7. Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. In addition, Liang taught wherein the verifying, by the second terminal, validity of the received data according to a comparison result of the first digest information and the second digest information, comprises: determining, by the second terminal, the received data to be valid in response to determining that the first digest information is the same as the second digest information; or determining, by the second terminal, the received data to be invalid in response to determining that the first digest information is different from the second digest information (claim 6, lines 1-8).
8. With respect to claim 13, Liang taught a data transmission system (claim 1, line 1), comprising a first terminal and a second terminal (claim 1, lines 1-6, the sender and the receiver), wherein the first terminal is configured to obtain data to be transmitted (claim 1, lines 1-6), determine a first digest information of the data to be transmitted (claim 6, lines 1-3), wherein the first digest information represents fixed-length encrypted information related to the data to be transmitted (page 6, lines 6-10, where MD5 is fixed length); and send the first digest information and the data to be transmitted to a second terminal (claim 6, lines 1-8), and the second terminal is configured to receive the first digest information and data sent by the first terminal (claim 6, lines 1-8), determine a second digest information of the received data (claim 6, lines 1-8), and verify validity of the received data according to a comparison result of the first digest information and the second digest information (claim 6, lines 7-8, where the determination to allow the receiver to receive the data implicitly teaches the validity determination).
9. Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as claim 13. In addition, Liang taught wherein the first terminal determines the first digest information of the data to be transmitted according to a message digest algorithm; and the second terminal determines the second digest information of received data according to the message digest algorithm (claim 6, lines 1-8).
10. Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as claim 13. In addition, Liang taught wherein the second terminal verifies validity of the received data according to a comparison result of the first digest information and the second digest information, by: determining the received data to be valid in response to determining that the first digest information is the same as the second digest information; or determining the received data to be invalid in response to determining that the first digest information is different from the second digest information (claim 6, lines 1-8, where this, at least, teaches the “information is the same” limitation).
11. Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Liang taught a terminal, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a program executable by the processor, and the processor is configured to read the program in the memory (claim 9, line 1).
12. Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. In addition, Liang taught a terminal, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a program executable by the processor, and the processor is configured to read the program in the memory (claim 9, lines 1-3).
13. Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Liang taught non-transient computer storage medium, wherein the storage medium stores a computer-executable instruction, and the computer-executable instruction, in response to being executed by a processor, implements steps of the method (claim 9, lines 1-3).
14. Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. In addition, Liang taught a non-transient computer storage medium, wherein the storage medium stores a computer-executable instruction, and the computer-executable instruction, in response to being executed by a processor, implements steps of the method (claim 9, lines 1-3).
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) 3-4, 9-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, in view of Fang Ping (WO 2016/066124 A1), hereinafter Fang.
15. Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Liang did not explicitly state establishing, by the first terminal, communication connection with the second terminal through a WIFI connection mode. On the other hand, Fang did teach establishing, by the first terminal, communication connection with the second terminal through a WIFI connection mode (Page 4, Background Technique Section, lines 7-12). Both of the systems of Liang and Fang are directed towards establishing communication between devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Liang to utilize establishing a Wi-Fi connection between two devices, as taught by Fang, in order to utilize standard device connection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
16. Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as claim 3. However, Liang did not explicitly state wherein the establishing, by the first terminal, communication connection with the second terminal through a WIFI connection mode, comprises: performing, by the first terminal, a GO negotiation with the second terminal in response to the first terminal entering in a WIFI scanning state and scanning the second terminal; and determining, by the first terminal, to establish the communication connection with the second terminal in response to completion of GO negotiation. On the other hand, Fang did teach wherein the establishing, by the first terminal, communication connection with the second terminal through a WIFI connection mode, comprises: performing, by the first terminal, a GO negotiation with the second terminal in response to the first terminal entering in a WIFI scanning state and scanning the second terminal; and determining, by the first terminal, to establish the communication connection with the second terminal in response to completion of GO negotiation (Page 4, Background Technique Section, lines 7-12). Both of the systems of Liang and Fang are directed towards establishing communication between devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Liang to utilize establishing a Wi-Fi connection between two devices, as taught by Fang, in order to utilize standard device connection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
17. Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. However, Liang did not explicitly state establishing, by the second terminal, communication connection with the first terminal through a WIFI connection mode. On the other hand, Fang did teach establishing, by the second terminal, communication connection with the first terminal through a WIFI connection mode (Page 4, Background Technique Section, lines 7-12). Both of the systems of Liang and Fang are directed towards establishing communication between devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Liang to utilize establishing a Wi-Fi connection between two devices, as taught by Fang, in order to utilize standard device connection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
18. Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as claim 9. However, Liang did not explicitly state wherein the establishing, by the second terminal, communication connection with the first terminal through a WIFI connection mode, comprises: performing, by the second terminal, a GO negotiation with the first terminal in response to the second terminal entering in a WIFI scanning state and scanning the first terminal; and determining, by the second terminal, to establish the communication connection with the first terminal in response to completion of GO negotiation. On the other hand, Fang did teach wherein the establishing, by the second terminal, communication connection with the first terminal through a WIFI connection mode, comprises: performing, by the second terminal, a GO negotiation with the first terminal in response to the second terminal entering in a WIFI scanning state and scanning the first terminal; and determining, by the second terminal, to establish the communication connection with the first terminal in response to completion of GO negotiation (Page 4, Background Technique Section, lines 7-12). Both of the systems of Liang and Fang are directed towards establishing communication between devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Liang to utilize establishing a Wi-Fi connection between two devices, as taught by Fang, in order to utilize standard device connection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
19. Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as claim 13. However, Liang did not explicitly state establishing, by the first terminal, communication connection with the second terminal through a WIFI connection mode. On the other hand, Fang did teach establishing, by the first terminal, communication connection with the second terminal through a WIFI connection mode (Page 4, Background Technique Section, lines 7-12). Both of the systems of Liang and Fang are directed towards establishing communication between devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Liang to utilize establishing a Wi-Fi connection between two devices, as taught by Fang, in order to utilize standard device connection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, in view of Yin Sheng Ge (CN 104955169 A), hereinafter Yin.
20. Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Liang did not explicitly state establishing, by the first terminal, a socket channel with the second terminal based on UDP or TCP; and sending, by the first terminal, the first digest information and the data to be transmitted to the second terminal through the socket channel. On the other hand, Yin did teach establishing, by the first terminal, a socket channel with the second terminal based on UDP or TCP; and sending, by the first terminal, the first digest information and the data to be transmitted to the second terminal through the socket channel (Page 3, lines 23-25, where this, at least, teaches the TCP limitation and where the digest transmittal was previously shown by Liang: claim 6, lines 1-8). Both of the systems of Liang and Yin are directed towards establishing communication between devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Liang to utilize establishing a socket channel connection between two devices, as taught by Yin, in order to utilize standard device connection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
21. Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. However, Liang did not explicitly state establishing, by the second terminal, a socket channel with the first terminal based on UDP or TCP; and receiving, by the second terminal, the first digest information and the data through the socket channel. On the other hand, Yin did teach establishing, by the second terminal, a socket channel with the first terminal based on UDP or TCP; and receiving, by the second terminal, the first digest information and the data through the socket channel (Page 3, lines 23-25, where this, at least, teaches the TCP limitation and where the digest transmittal was previously shown by Liang: claim 6, lines 1-8). Both of the systems of Liang and Yin are directed towards establishing communication between devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Liang to utilize establishing a socket channel connection between two devices, as taught by Yin, in order to utilize standard device connection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Laurich, et al. (Canadian Intellectual Property Office 2800809 A1), 0725, 0542.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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 R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443