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 1-5 and 7-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are amended as filed on 06/02/2026.
Claim 6 is canceled as filed on 06/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
More specifically, Claims 1, 7, and 13 contain the limitation “send a data frame on interrupted data transmission”. The specification mentions an interrupted data transmission in TABLE 1, and paragraphs 0161, 0190, and 0244. However, the examiner was unable to find an explicit definition for what is meant by said limitation. Is the invention sending another data frame along the connection that just failed? Is the data frame being transmitted on an alternative connection designed for when a primary connection is interrupted? Does the interrupt mean that the system is transmitting a message stopping the transmission attempt? Does the send interrupt message mean sending a message to be displayed to the user that indicates that the transmission has been interrupted? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the interrupt message to the user limitation. However, appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, claims 2-5, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected, at least, based on their respective dependencies on claims 1, 7, and 13.
Claims, 7 and 13 contain the limitation “the second terminal receiving a data overtime”. Does the refer to the second terminal specifically receiving a message that the system has timed out? Does this refer to the second terminal timing out? For examiner purposes, the limitation will be treated as if referring to the second terminal timing out. However, appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, claims 9-12 and 14-20 are rejected, at least, based on their respective dependencies on claims 7 and 13.
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) 1-2, 7-8, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang Xiyun (CN110289947), in view of Terao (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0069851 A1), hereinafter Terao.
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).
However, Liang did not explicitly state receiving, by a first terminal, a transmission instruction input by a user in a display page, and determining, by the first terminal, data to be transmitted according to the transmission instruction and stopping sending by the first terminal, the data to be transmitted, displaying a sending failure and sending a data frame on interrupted data transmission, based on the first terminal failing to receive a response frame from the second terminal. On the other hand, Terao did teach receiving, by a first terminal, a transmission instruction input by a user in a display page, and determining, by the first terminal, data to be transmitted according to the transmission instruction (0025 & 0051) and stopping sending by the first terminal, the data to be transmitted, displaying a sending failure and sending a data frame on interrupted data transmission, based on the first terminal failing to receive a response frame from the second terminal (0072-0073. See also: 0077-0078). Both of the systems of Liang and Terao are directed towards managing transmission 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 a user dictating a data frame transmission in a system that display a failed connection message when the transmission fails, as taught by Terao, as this was a common practice for data transmissions that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
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. 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).
However, Liang did not explicitly state wherein the data is determined by the first terminal based on a transmission instruction input by a user in a display page and sending, by the second terminal, a data frame on interrupted data transmission based on the second terminal receiving a data overtime and stopping a data transmission process. On the other hand, Terao did teach wherein the data is determined by the first terminal based on a transmission instruction input by a user in a display page (0025 & 0051) and sending, by the second terminal, a data frame on interrupted data transmission based on the second terminal receiving a data overtime and stopping a data transmission process (0072-0073, where the predetermined time threshold is the overtime. See also: 0077-0078). Both of the systems of Liang and Terao are directed towards managing transmission 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 a user dictating a data frame transmission in a system that display a failed connection message when the transmission fails, as taught by Terao, as this was a common practice for data transmissions that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. 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).
However, Liang did not explicitly state to receive a transmission instruction input by a user in a display page, determine data to be transmitted according to the transmission instruction; to stop sending the data to be transmitted, display a sending failure and send a data frame on interrupted data transmission, based on the first terminal failing to receive a response frame from the second terminal; and send a data frame on interrupted data transmission based on the second terminal receiving a data overtime and stopping a data transmission process. On the other hand, Terao did teach to receive a transmission instruction input by a user in a display page, determine data to be transmitted according to the transmission instruction; to stop sending the data to be transmitted, display a sending failure and send a data frame on interrupted data transmission, based on the first terminal failing to receive a response frame from the second terminal; and send a data frame on interrupted data transmission based on the second terminal receiving a data overtime and stopping a data transmission process (0025 & 0051, wherein the displayed message can be seen in 0072-0073. See also: 0077-0078, and wherein the predetermined time is the overtime). Both of the systems of Liang and Terao are directed towards managing transmission 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 a user dictating a data frame transmission in a system that display a failed connection message when the transmission fails, as taught by Terao, as this was a common practice for data transmissions that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
8. 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).
9. 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).
10. 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).
11. 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).
12. 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).
13. 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(s) 3-4, 9-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, in view of Terao, and in further view of Fang Ping (WO 2016/066124 A1), hereinafter Fang.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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 Terao, and in further view of Yin Sheng Ge (CN 104955169 A), hereinafter Yin.
19. 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.
20. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights