DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Pre-Amendment filed 08/08/2024.
Claims 1-8, 13-20, 25 and 27-29 are pending in this application. In the Amendment, claims 1-4, 6-8, 13-20 and 25 are amended, claims 27-29 are new and claims 9-12, 21-24 and 26 are cancelled.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 13, 17-18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Delaney et al. (US 2021/0092024).
As per claim 1, Delaney teaches a method, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining, by an electronic device, itinerary information (Delaney, para.25-26, 53, 61-62, 84, calendar data);
determining, by the electronic device, first duration based on the itinerary information (Delaney, para.52, 65, 69, 71, 73, period of time of no network connection);
obtaining and storing, by the electronic device, first content based on the first duration (Delaney, para.54, 56-58, 72-75, content recommended based on matching the period of time); and
displaying, by the electronic device, a first user interface, wherein the first user interface comprises a first option corresponding to the first content, and the first option is used to perform an operation on the first content (Delaney, Fig.3, para.56-58, 75-76, list of content options; Fig.6, para.83, selector to initiate playback).
As per claim 5, Delaney teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: displaying, by the electronic device, the first content when receiving a first operation performed on the first option or when detecting that the electronic device is in a preset state (Delaney, Fig.6, para.83, selector to initiate playback).
As per claim 6, Delaney teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein before the obtaining, by an electronic device, itinerary information, the method further comprises:
displaying, by the electronic device, a second user interface that is provided by a settings application and that comprises a second option (Delaney, Fig.8, para.87, settings menu with options); and
receiving, by the electronic device, a second operation performed on the second option, wherein the second operation is used to trigger the electronic device to obtain the itinerary information and to store the first content (Delaney, Fig.8, para.87-89, settings menu with options 802/804 to enable invention).
Claims 13 and 25 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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 2-4, 8, 14-16, 20 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney et al. (US 2021/0092024) in view of Carbune et al. (“Carbune”, US 2019/0095786).
As per claim 2, Delaney teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining, by the electronic device, first duration based on the itinerary information comprises:
determining, by the electronic device, a travel road section of a user based on the itinerary information (Delaney, para.63-64, keyword/event type/location from calendar data);
determining, from the travel road section by the electronic device, a first road section with network signal strength (Delaney, para.63-64, 68, 73, lack of network connection); and
determining, by the electronic device, the first duration for the user to pass through the first road section (Delaney, para.69, 73, period of time at location).
However, Delaney does not explicitly teach the network signal strength being less than a first threshold. Carbune teaches a method of caching content to be viewing during network disconnection when the network signal strength is less than a threshold (Carbune, para.45-46, network connectivity below threshold level). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Carbune’s teaching with Delaney’s method in order to identify disconnected time periods.
As per claim 3, the method of Delaney and Carbune teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein before the determining, from the travel road section by the electronic device, a first road section with network signal strength being less than a first threshold (Carbune, para.45-46), the method further comprises:
sending, by the electronic device, the itinerary information to a server (Delaney, para.64, 68, map of Internet coverage for location from calendar data is accessed from online database); and
receiving, by the electronic device, network signal strength that is of the travel road section and that is sent by the server (Delaney, para.64, 68, map of Internet coverage for location from calendar data is accessed from online database); and
wherein the determining, from the travel road section by the electronic device, a first road section with network signal strength being less than a first threshold comprises:
determining, from the travel road section by the electronic device based on the network signal strength of the travel road section and the first threshold (Carbune, para.45-46), the first road section with network signal strength being less than the first threshold (Delaney, para.63-64, 68, 73, lack of network connection).
As per claim 4, Delaney teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises:
determining, by the electronic device, a travel time of the user based on the itinerary information (Delaney, para.52, 65, 69, 71, 73, period of time from calendar data); and
wherein the determining, by the electronic device, the first duration for the user to pass through the first road section comprises:
determining, by the electronic device, the first duration for the user to pass through the first road section within the travel time (Delaney, para.69, 73, period of time at location).
As per claim 8, Delaney teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining and storing, by the electronic device, first content based on the first duration comprises:
when a network status meets a preset condition, obtaining and storing, by the electronic device, the first content based on the first duration (Delaney, para.77, cache content in advance of no network connection).
However, Delaney does not explicitly teach wherein the preset condition comprises at least one of network signal strength of the electronic device being greater than a second threshold, or a network type of the electronic device being a first type. Carbune teaches a method of caching content to be viewing when a network signal strength of the electronic device is greater than a threshold (Carbune, para.25, 52, content retrieval when greater than network connection threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Carbune’s teaching with Delaney’s method in order to retrieve content in advance and during ideal conditions.
Claims 14 and 27 are similar in scope to claim 2, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 15 and 28 are similar in scope to claim 3, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 16 and 29 are similar in scope to claim 4, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney et al. (US 2021/0092024) in view of Kohlenberg et al. (“Kohlenberg”, US 2014/0095943).
As per claim 7, Delaney teaches the method according to claim 1, however does not teach wherein the method further comprises: removing, by the electronic device, the first content from storage space after detection of a third operation or after detection that the electronic device arrives at a destination; and displaying, by the electronic device, prompt information, wherein the prompt information indicates that the electronic device has removed the first content from the storage space. Kohlenberg teaches a method of precaching content and removing the content from storage space after detection that the electronic device arrives at a destination and displaying prompt information indicating that the electronic device has removed the first content from the storage space (Kohlenberg, para.52, 55, confirm deletion after connectivity restored). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kohlenberg’s teaching with Delaney’s method in order to save storage space.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bates et al. (US 10,097,879) teaches a method of transferring content to another location based on a travel schedule.
Blohowiak et al. (US 11,438,641) teaches a method of downloading media for user to watch during network disconnection.
Dixon (US 9,414,222) teaches a method of pre-downloading media for user to watch during network disconnection.
DeLuca et al. (US 9,860,336) teaches a method of prefetching content based on predicted dead spots.
Kirmse et al. (US 2013/0344896) teaches a method of pre-caching media for user to watch during travel.
Chan et al. (US 2015/0208205) teaches a method of pre-downloading and deleting media prior to an event to save storage space.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue/Thur-Fri 10am-8pm.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/S.M./
Sajeda MuhebbullahExaminer, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights