RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
This Action is in response to the Amendment for Application Number 18743759 received on 1/05/2026.
This application claims foreign priority to CN 202111546525.1, filed 12/16/2021.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-16, 18-23 are presented for examination.
Claims 3, 9, and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are newly presented.
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 § 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 21-23 are 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation, “wherein the first multimedia message body is based on the second multimedia message body being less than the preset threshold”, which is found indefinite, as it is unclear what is meant by a multimedia message being less than a threshold. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite the “size” of the second multimedia message body being less than the preset threshold.
Claim 22 recites the limitation, “wherein the first multimedia message body is based on the second multimedia message body being less than the preset threshold”, which is found indefinite, as it is unclear what is meant by a multimedia message being less than a threshold. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite the “size” of the second multimedia message body being less than the preset threshold.
Claim 23 recites the limitation, “the first multimedia message body is based on the third multimedia message body being less than the preset threshold”, which is found indefinite, as it is unclear what is meant by a multimedia message body being less than a threshold. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite the “size” of the third multimedia message body being less than the preset threshold.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warsta et al. (US 20040181550).
Regarding claim 1. Warsta disclosed a method implemented by a terminal device, wherein the method comprises:
generating hardware information sending, to a network device, the hardware information (Warsta, [0010], Warsta disclosed, “The server is configured to receive a first content request and capabilities associated with the first content request. The server is configured to provide adapted content in response to the first content request, where the adaptation of content is performed in accordance with the received capabilities.”; [0012], “The method includes receiving capability characteristics of a content requester, and locating previously adapted content relating to capability characteristics of previous content requesters”; [0052] Warsta explicitly disclosed the mobile terminal communicating its capabilities; See [0032] listing capabilities such as hardware capabilities which limits the particular content that may be received and consumed); and
receiving, from the network device based on a first multimedia message body selected from one of at least two multimedia message bodies that are for same content, a first multimedia message (Warsta, [0053], “One advantage offered by the present invention, is the ability of MMSC 320 to not only cache the capabilities of content consumption devices, e.g., mobile terminal 302 and 316, but MMSC 320 may also cache the previously adapted content”; That is, MMSC has multiple versions of the requested content, stored for various capabilities; Also in [0053], Warsta disclosed the content consumption devices retrieving the content, and therefore receiving a first multimedia message, which is determined according to the capabilities, the adapted content amounts to a message body selected from multiple previously adapted content versions/message bodies),
wherein the first multimedia message body is based on the hardware information (Warsta, [0053], the version of content received is based on the mobile device’s hardware capabilities),
wherein a size of the first multimedia message body complies with a multimedia message capability corresponding to the hardware information, wherein the multimedia message capability indicates an upper limit that is of an upper limit size of the first multimedia message and that is supported by the terminal device (Warsta, [0055] Warsta provides an explicit example of capabilities with respect to limiting the content to a total message size, i.e. “15 Kbytes”; See [0056] and [0057], MMSC adapts the content to be within the limits specified by the capabilities; In [0057] such adaption may include retrieving already cached pre-adapted content that is within the mobile device’s limits; In the example above, choosing a pre-adapted content that complies with the upper limit of 15 Kbytes amounts to choosing content having a size that complies with the specified upper limit size supported by the mobile device, such as in the example of 15 Kbytes).
Regarding claim 7, Warsta disclosed a network device comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Warsta, [0066], “memory”);
one or more processors in communication with the at least one memory (Warsta, [0066], “a central processor (CPU) 802 coupled to random access memory (RAM)”) that is configured responsive to execution of the instructions to:
obtain at least two multimedia message bodies that are for same content, wherein sizes of the at least two multimedia message bodies are different (Warsta, [0053], “One advantage offered by the present invention, is the ability of MMSC 320 to not only cache the capabilities of content consumption devices, e.g., mobile terminal 302 and 316, but MMSC 320 may also cache the previously adapted content”; That is, MMSC has multiple versions of the requested content, stored for various capabilities; Also in [0053], Warsta disclosed the content consumption devices retrieving the content, and therefore receiving a first multimedia message, which is determined according to the capabilities, and therefore selected from multiple previously adapted content versions; Warsta, [0055] Warsta provides an explicit example of capabilities with respect to limiting the content to a total message size, i.e. “15 Kbytes”; See [0056] and [0057], MMSC adapts the content to be within the limits specified by the capabilities; In [0057] such adaption may include retrieving already cached pre-adapted content that is within the mobile device’s limits; In the example above, choosing a pre-adapted content that complies with the upper limit of 15 Kbytes amounts to choosing content having a size that complies with the specified upper limit size supported by the mobile device, such as in the example of 15 Kbytes, from multiple cached versions of the content);
receive hardware information from a terminal device (Warsta, [0010], Warsta disclosed, “The server is configured to receive a first content request and capabilities associated with the first content request. The server is configured to provide adapted content in response to the first content request, where the adaptation of content is performed in accordance with the received capabilities.”; [0012], “The method includes receiving capability characteristics of a content requester, and locating previously adapted content relating to capability characteristics of previous content requesters”; [0052] Warsta explicitly disclosed the mobile terminal communicating its capabilities; See [0032] listing capabilities such as hardware capabilities which limits the particular content that may be received and consumed)
generate, based on the hardware information and a first multimedia message body selected from the at least two multimedia message bodies, a first multimedia message, wherein a first size of the first multimedia message body complies with a multimedia message capability corresponding to the hardware information, and wherein the multimedia message capability indicates an upper limit that is of an upper limit size of the first multimedia message and that is supported by the terminal device (Warsta, [0053], “One advantage offered by the present invention, is the ability of MMSC 320 to not only cache the capabilities of content consumption devices, e.g., mobile terminal 302 and 316, but MMSC 320 may also cache the previously adapted content”; That is, MMSC has multiple versions of the requested content, stored for various capabilities; Also in [0053], Warsta disclosed the content consumption devices retrieving the content, and therefore receiving a first multimedia body, which is determined according to the capabilities, and therefore selected from multiple previously adapted content versions; Warsta, [0055] Warsta provides an explicit example of capabilities with respect to limiting the content to a total message size, i.e. “15 Kbytes”; See [0056] and [0057], MMSC adapts the content to be within the limits specified by the capabilities; In [0057] such adaption may include retrieving already cached pre-adapted content that is within the mobile device’s limits; In the example above, choosing a pre-adapted content that complies with the upper limit of 15 Kbytes amounts to choosing content having a size that complies with the specified upper limit size supported by the mobile device, such as in the example of 15 Kbytes, for a message generated to be sent to the particular mobile device requesting such content); and
send, to the terminal device, the first multimedia message (Warsta, [0056], “The content retrieval request is fulfilled by MMSC 320 by transmitting the adapted content to mobile terminal 302”).
Regarding claim 14, Warsta disclosed the network device of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured responsive to execution of the instructions to: receive, from an application server (Warsta, Fig. 1, 106, [0026], Gateway 106 acting as a server to which content 104 is transmitted to gateway 106 for intermediate storage and provides the content to network element 108), an application-to-person (A2P) message comprising the same content (Warsta, [0027], Network element 108 may receive content 104 via gateway 106); and generate, based on the same content, the at least two multimedia message bodies (Warsta, [0027], “according to the principles of the present invention cause a content adaptation resulting in a reduction in quality of content 104 to yield content adaptation-A 112”; [0028], “according to the principles of the present invention, cause a content adaptation resulting in a reduction in resolution of content 104 to yield content adaptation-B 114” ).
Regarding claim 15, Warsta disclosed a terminal device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (Warsta, [0064], “memory” See also [0056] mobile device having memory); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the terminal device to (Warsta, [0066], “processor”; [0032] mobile terminals described as having processing power and therefore processor coupled to memory):
generate hardware information (Warsta, [0052] Warsta explicitly disclosed the mobile terminal communicating its capabilities; See [0032] listing capabilities such as hardware capabilities which limits the particular content that may be received and consumed; the mobile terminal communicating its capabilities requires generating the message in order to communicate the capabilities);
send, to a network device, the hardware information (Warsta, [0052] Warsta explicitly disclosed the mobile terminal communicating its capabilities; See [0032] listing capabilities such as hardware capabilities which limits the particular content that may be received and consumed); and
receive, from the network device based on a first multimedia message body selected from one of at least two multimedia message bodies that are for same content, a first multimedia message comprising the same content, wherein the first multimedia message body is based on the hardware information, wherein a size of the first multimedia message body complies with a multimedia message capability corresponding to the hardware information, and wherein the multimedia message capability indicates an upper limit that is of an upper limit size of the first multimedia message and that is supported by the terminal device (Warsta, [0053], “One advantage offered by the present invention, is the ability of MMSC 320 to not only cache the capabilities of content consumption devices, e.g., mobile terminal 302 and 316, but MMSC 320 may also cache the previously adapted content”; That is, MMSC has multiple versions of the requested content, stored for various capabilities; Also in [0053], Warsta disclosed the content consumption devices retrieving the content, and therefore receiving a first multimedia body, which is determined according to the capabilities, and therefore selected from multiple previously message bodies of adapted content versions; Warsta, [0055] Warsta provides an explicit example of capabilities with respect to limiting the content to a total message size, i.e. “15 Kbytes”; See [0056] and [0057], MMSC adapts the content to be within the limits specified by the capabilities; In [0057] such adaption may include retrieving already cached pre-adapted content that is within the mobile device’s limits; In the example above, choosing a pre-adapted content that complies with the upper limit of 15 Kbytes amounts to choosing content having a size that complies with the specified upper limit size supported by the mobile device, such as in the example of 15 Kbytes, for a message generated to be sent to the particular mobile device requesting such content).
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) 4, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warsta et al. (US 20040181550) in view of Satish (WO 2014044898).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Warsta disclosed the method of claim 1, wherein sending the hardware information comprises sending, to the network device, a multimedia request comprising the hardware information, and a multimedia message request that requests the first multimedia message (Warsta, [0010], Warsta disclosed, “The server is configured to receive a first content request and capabilities associated with the first content request. The server is configured to provide adapted content in response to the first content request, where the adaptation of content is performed in accordance with the received capabilities.”; [0012], “The method includes receiving capability characteristics of a content requester, and locating previously adapted content relating to capability characteristics of previous content requesters”; [0052] Warsta explicitly disclosed the mobile terminal communicating its capabilities; See [0032] listing capabilities such as hardware capabilities which limits the particular content that may be received and consumed).
Warsta additionally disclosed “support for content adaptation for multimedia messages exists, such that that content is adapted to support the particular characteristics of a certain mobile terminal. The content adaptation is performed based upon User Agent Profile (UAProf) attributes, which are signaled to the Multimedia Messaging Service Center (MMSC) during a retrieval transaction” (Warsta, [0005]).
While Warsta disclosed the terminal transmitting both a multimedia request and capability information of the terminal, Warsta did not explicitly disclose the multimedia request including the capability information, as claimed.
In an analogous art, Satish disclosed the multimedia request including the capability information (Satish, page 17, line 28 through page 18, line 8, Satish disclosed user device 600 sending a request for content in which the user device 600 constructs e.g. a message for the transmission of the request, in which the request may contain information of the profile of the user device 600, in which the profile may contain information of the hardware/software properties, including information of the operating system of the user device 600 and information of the version of the operating system)
user device 600 sending a request for content in which the user device 600 constructs e.g. a message for the transmission of the request, in which the request may contain information of the profile of the user device 600, in which the profile may contain information of the hardware/software properties, including information of the operating system of the user device 600 and information of the version of the operating system; Satish disclosed the profile may be used by the server and therefore determined from the request).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Warsta and Satish as they both provide teachings for handling multimedia requests and as such they are within similar environments. Furthermore, as Warsta explicitly suggests the utilization of client profiles, such as UAProf (Warsta, [0051]), such would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to apply other well-known techniques that utilize UAprof, such as the techniques of Satish (Satish, page 18, lines 5-8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Satish within Warsta in order to combine the content request and capability information within a single multimedia request, as doing so would obtain the predictable results of minimizing the number of communications involved, thereby reducing bandwidth required for such transmissions, resulting in a more efficient manner of communication for such requests.
Regarding claims 10, Warsta disclosed the network device of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are configured responsive to execution of the instructions to: receive, from the terminal device, the hardware information in a request and determine the hardware information based on the request (Warsta, [0010], Warsta disclosed, “The server is configured to receive a first content request and capabilities associated with the first content request. The server is configured to provide adapted content in response to the first content request, where the adaptation of content is performed in accordance with the received capabilities.”; [0012], “The method includes receiving capability characteristics of a content requester, and locating previously adapted content relating to capability characteristics of previous content requesters”; [0052] Warsta explicitly disclosed the mobile terminal communicating its capabilities; See [0032] listing capabilities such as hardware capabilities which limits the particular content that may be received and consumed)
Warsta additionally disclosed “support for content adaptation for multimedia messages exists, such that that content is adapted to support the particular characteristics of a certain mobile terminal. The content adaptation is performed based upon User Agent Profile (UAProf) attributes, which are signaled to the Multimedia Messaging Service Center (MMSC) during a retrieval transaction” (Warsta, [0005]).
While Warsta disclosed the terminal transmitting both a multimedia request and capability information of the terminal, Warsta did not explicitly disclose the hardware information to be within a multimedia message request and determining the hardware information based on the multimedia message request, as claimed.
In an analogous art, Satish disclosed the hardware information to be within a multimedia message request and determining the hardware information based on the multimedia message request (Satish, page 17, line 28 through page 18, line 8, Satish disclosed user device 600 sending a request for content in which the user device 600 constructs e.g. a message for the transmission of the request, in which the request may contain information of the profile of the user device 600, in which the profile may contain information of the hardware/software properties, including information of the operating system of the user device 600 and information of the version of the operating system; Satish disclosed the profile may be used by the server and therefore determined from the request).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Warsta and Satish as they both provide teachings for handling multimedia requests and as such they are within similar environments. Furthermore, as Warsta explicitly suggests the utilization of client profiles, such as UAProf (Warsta, [0051]), such would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to apply other well-known techniques that utilize UAprof, such as the techniques of Satish (Satish, page 18, lines 5-8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Satish within Warsta in order to combine the content request and capability information within a single multimedia request, as doing so would obtain the predictable results of minimizing the number of communications involved, thereby reducing bandwidth required for such transmissions, resulting in a more efficient manner of communication for such requests.
Claim(s) 5-6, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warsta et al. (US 20040181550) in view of Satish (WO 2014044898) and further in view of Hewes et al. (US 8954102).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Warsta disclosed the method of claim 1, and terminal device of claim 15, but did not explicitly disclose wherein before sending the hardware information, the method further comprises receiving, from the network device, information regarding media for download.
In an analogous art, Satish disclosed wherein before sending the hardware information, the method further comprises receiving, from the network device, information regarding media for download to which the user device sends a request for such media, in which the request includes the capability information of the user device (Satish, page 18, lines 9-25, Satish disclosed a user device 600 using a browser application for browsing the internet to which a media clip is found and the user wishes to download the media clip, in which the request is transmitted to the server 510 which handles the request and determines that the media clip should be transmitted to the user device; Satish, page 17, line 28 through page 18, line 8, Satish disclosed user device 600 sending a request for content in which the user device 600 constructs e.g. a message for the transmission of the request, in which the request may contain information of the profile of the user device 600, in which the profile may contain information of the hardware/software properties, including information of the operating system of the user device 600 and information of the version of the operating system; Satish disclosed the profile may be used by the server and therefore determined from the request).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Warsta and Satish as they both provide teachings for handling multimedia requests and as such they are within similar environments. Furthermore, as Warsta explicitly suggests the utilization of client profiles, such as UAProf (Warsta, [0051]), such would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to apply other well-known techniques that utilize UAprof, such as the techniques of Satish (Satish, page 18, lines 5-8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Satish within Warsta in order to combine the content request and capability information within a single multimedia request, as doing so would obtain the predictable results of minimizing the number of communications involved, thereby reducing bandwidth required for such transmissions, resulting in a more efficient manner of communication for such requests.
While the combined teachings of Warsta and Satish disclosed information presented to the user device before the sending of hardware information, in which the user initiates a request from the browser, Warsta and Satish did not explicitly disclose the information in the form of a notification message notifying the terminal device that the network device has the at least two multimedia message bodies, wherein the notification message comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the URL indicates a storage address of at least one of the at least two multimedia message bodies.
In an analogous art, Hewes disclosed wherein before sending the hardware information, the method further comprises receiving, from the network device, a notification message notifying the terminal device that the network device has the at least two multimedia message bodies, wherein the notification message comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein the URL indicates a storage address of at least one of the at least two multimedia message bodies (Hewes, col. 10, lines 26-40, Hewes disclosed multimedia content is not pushed to the personal communication device, but instead a reference to the multimedia content is pushed to the personal communication device, to which the personal communications device then retrieves the multimedia content; col. 9, lines 12-22, Hewes disclosed the content reference including a URL).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Warsta and Satish with Hewes as they all provide teachings for handling multimedia requests and as such they are within similar environments. Furthermore, as both Warsta and Satish explicitly suggest the utilization of client profiles, such as UAProf (Warsta, [0051], Satish, page 18, lines 5-8), such would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to apply other well-known techniques that utilize UAprof, such as the techniques of Hewes (Hewes, col. 7, lines 15-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Hewes within the combined teachings of Satish and Warsta in order to provide additional content requesting techniques based on the personal data communication device multimedia capabilities and its current state, as doing so would obtain the predictable results of minimizing the number of communications involved, thereby remaining within the processing constraints of the device in order to optimize the content delivered to the devices (Hewes, col. 1, lines 40-60).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Warsta, Satish, and Hewes disclosed the method of claim 5 and terminal device of claim 19, further comprising downloading, from one of the storage addresses, the first multimedia message (Hewes, col. 10, lines 26-40, Hewes disclosed multimedia content is not pushed to the personal communication device, but instead a reference to the multimedia content is pushed to the personal communication device, to which the personal communications device then retrieves the multimedia content; col. 9, lines 12-22, Hewes disclosed the content reference including a URL). See motivation to combine above.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 16, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warsta et al. (US 20040181550) in view of Paul et al. (US 20110083069).
Regarding claim 2, Warsta disclosed the method of claim 1, wherein the hardware information includes an identifier that identifies a preset threshold (Warsta, [0055] Warsta provides an explicit example of capabilities with respect to limiting the content to a particular message size, i.e. “15 Kbytes”; See [0056] and [0057], MMSC adapts the content to be within the limits specified by the capabilities; In [0057] such adaption may include retrieving already cached pre-adapted content that is within the mobile device’s limits; In the example above, choosing a pre-adapted content that complies with the upper limit of 15 Kbytes amounts to choosing content having a size that is less than a preset threshold).
Warsta did not explicitly disclose wherein the upper limit size that is supported by an operating system is indicated by an operating system identifier of the terminal device comprised in the hardware information, and wherein the operating system identifier identifies a preset threshold.
In an analogous art, Paul disclosed wherein the upper limit size that is supported by an operating system is indicated by an operating system identifier of the terminal device comprised in the hardware information, and wherein the operating system identifier identifies a preset threshold (Paul, [0086]-[0089], Paul disclosed, upon receiving the request for content, the media controller obtains device capabilities including type of operating system, and message size limits, to which the media handler utilizes the capabilities and checks whether a transformed version of the requested content for the type of device requesting the content is available and returning that version of the content).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Warsta and Paul as they both relate to handling multimedia requests, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the utilization of message size limits based on the operating system device type, as disclosed by Paul within the teachings of Warsta in order to provide additional content requesting techniques based on the capabilities of data communication devices, to obtain the predictable results of remaining within the processing constraints of the device in order to optimize the content delivered to such devices.
Regarding claim 8, Warsta disclosed the communication system of claim 7, wherein the at least two multimedia message bodies comprise a second multimedia message body and a third multimedia message body, wherein a second size of the second multimedia message body is less than a third size of the third multimedia message body, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured responsive to execution of the instructions to:
generate the first multimedia message body using either the second multimedia message body or the third multimedia message body based on a preset threshold of the multimedia message capability (Warsta, [0055] Warsta provides an explicit example of capabilities with respect to limiting the content to a particular message size, i.e. “15 Kbytes”; See [0056] and [0057], MMSC adapts the content to be within the limits specified by the capabilities; In [0057] such adaption may include retrieving already cached pre-adapted content that is within the mobile device’s limits; In the example above, choosing a pre-adapted content that complies with the upper limit of 15 Kbytes amounts to choosing content having a size that is less than a preset threshold from multiple pre-adapted versions in which choosing based on the message sizes amount to certain pre-adapted versions being larger in size than others)
Warsta did not explicitly disclose wherein the hardware information comprises an operating system identifier of the terminal device and determining, based on the operating system identifier, the multimedia message capability that is supported by an operating system indicated by the operating system identifier
In an analogous art, Paul disclosed wherein the hardware information comprises an operating system identifier of the terminal device and determining, based on the operating system identifier, the multimedia message capability that is supported by an operating system indicated by the operating system identifier (Paul, [0086]-[0089], Paul disclosed, upon receiving the request for content, the media controller obtains device capabilities including type of operating system and message size limits and determining capabilities from such information, which are the capabilities, to which the media handler utilizes the capabilities and checks whether a transformed version of the requested content for the type of device requesting the content is available and returning that version of the content).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Warsta and Paul as they both relate to handling multimedia requests, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the utilization of message size limits based on the operating system device type, as disclosed by Paul within the teachings of Warsta in order to provide additional content requesting techniques based on the capabilities of data communication devices, to obtain the predictable results of remaining within the processing constraints of the device in order to optimize the content delivered to such devices.
Regarding claim 16, Warsta disclosed the terminal device of claim 15, wherein the at least two multimedia message bodies comprise a second multimedia message body and a third multimedia message body, wherein a second size of the second multimedia message body is less than a third size of the third multimedia message body, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the terminal device to receive, from the network device, the first multimedia message body based on the second multimedia message body being less than a preset threshold (Warsta, [0055] Warsta provides an explicit example of capabilities with respect to limiting the content to a particular message size, i.e. “15 Kbytes”; See [0056] and [0057], MMSC adapts the content to be within the limits specified by the capabilities; In [0057] such adaption may include retrieving already cached pre-adapted content that is within the mobile device’s limits and sending to the mobile device (receiving); In the example above, choosing a pre-adapted content that complies with the upper limit of 15 Kbytes amounts to choosing content having a size that is less than a preset threshold).
Warsta did not explicitly disclose wherein the hardware information comprises an operating system identifier identifying the preset threshold of the terminal device, and the second multimedia message and that is supported by an operating system indicated by the operating system identifier.
In an analogous art, Paul disclosed wherein the hardware information comprises an operating system identifier identifying a preset threshold of the terminal device, and the second multimedia message and that is supported by an operating system indicated by the operating system identifier (Paul, [0086]-[0089], Paul disclosed, upon receiving the request for content, the media controller obtains device capabilities including type of operating system, and message size limits, to which the media handler utilizes the capabilities and checks whether a transformed version of the requested content for the type of device requesting the content is available and returning that version of the content; Paul therefore disclosed the device receiving a second multimedia message supported by an operating system in which the message size is less than a preset threshold).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Warsta and Paul as they both relate to handling multimedia requests, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the utilization of message size limits based on the operating system device type, as disclosed by Paul within the teachings of Warsta in order to provide additional content requesting techniques based on the capabilities of data communication devices, to obtain the predictable results of remaining within the processing constraints of the device in order to optimize the content delivered to such devices.
Regarding claim 21, Warsta and Paul disclosed the method of claim 2, including wherein the at least two multimedia message bodies include a second multimedia message body having a second size below the preset threshold and a third multimedia message body having a third size above the preset threshold, and wherein the first multimedia message body is based on the second multimedia message body being less than the preset threshold (Warsta, [0027]-[0028] in combination with the embodiments where the versions are previously adapted and cached, Warsta disclosed the selection of adapted content from multiple versions of the content, including one version above the storage capacity, such as Content 104 representing an image requiring storage capacity that exceeds the capacity of the mobile terminals, and reduced version A-112 which is within the capacity of the device,. i.e. less than capacity that the device cannot handle).
Regarding claim 22, Warsta and Paul disclosed the network device of claim 8, wherein the second size is below the preset threshold and the third size is above the preset threshold, and wherein the first multimedia message body is based on the second multimedia message body being less than the preset threshold (Warsta, [0027]-[0028] in combination with the embodiments where the versions are previously adapted and cached, Warsta disclosed the selection of adapted content from multiple versions of the content, including one version above the storage capacity, such as Content 104 representing an image requiring storage capacity that exceeds the capacity of the mobile terminals, and reduced version A-112 which is within the capacity of the device,. i.e. less than capacity that the device cannot handle).
Regarding claim 23, Warsta and Paul disclosed the terminal device of claim 16, wherein the third size are below the preset threshold, the first multimedia message body is based on the third multimedia message body being less than the preset threshold (Warsta, [0027]-[0028] in combination with the embodiments where the versions are previously adapted and cached,).
Warsta did not explicitly disclose where both the second size and the third size are below the preset threshold.
However, it would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have cached multiple content adaptations of various sizes where multiple content adaptations may have sizes below the preset threshold, since Warsta allows for multiple previously cached content adaptations, and includes examples of such content adaptations being both above and below the preset threshold capacity of the device (Warsta, [0027]-[0028], [0062]-[0063] Warsta disclosed embodiments in which multiple previously cached content adaptations exist). The inclusion of additional content adaptations below the preset threshold would not change the functionality of Warsta, and a version of the adapted content would be selected according to the device capabilities, such as being within the device’s capacity.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include additional content adaptations both above and below a preset threshold within the combined teachings of Warsta and Paul, as doing so would be obvious to try based on the examples of Warsta, for the predictable results of merely repeating the functionality of caching content adaptations for multiple devices resulting in multiple content adaptations being above and/or below a particular preset threshold capacity of a device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, pending correction to any formal issues (112 Rejections) above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, Warsta disclosed the communication system of claim 7, but did not disclose wherein the network device is further configured to: identify, based on registration information of the terminal device, that the terminal device is a non-fifth generation (5G)-capability online terminal device; send, to the terminal device and in response to identifying that the terminal device is the non-5G-capability online terminal device, a notification message notifying the terminal device that the network device has obtained the at least two multimedia message bodies.
Claims 12-13 are objected to by virtue of their dependencies to claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 1/05/2026 have been carefully considered but they are not deemed fully persuasive.
Applicant asserts, Warsta fails to disclose the limitation, "at least two multimedia message bodies that are for same content". Applicant asserts, "The cached 'adaptations' (of Warsta) are merely media payloads that may later be packaged into an MMS message. They are not themselves multimedia message bodies, instead they are merely an isolated adapted image or video clip. Thus, Warsta fails to disclose at least two multimedia message bodies that are for same content" [Response, 12-13].
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2111, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.
Applicant's Specification, at [0058], recites, "The multimedia message body may include information to be transmitted, such as text, images, sound, and data." That is, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Applicant’s Specification, would determine that Applicant’s Specification defines embodiments of a “multimedia message body” to include “information to be transmitted, such as text, images, sound, and data”.
As Applicant correctly notes above, the cached adaptations of Warsta include information such as an image or video (Warsta, [0002]-[0003]), in which Warsta transmits such information upon request (Warsta, [0056]). It is therefore evident that the cached adaptations of Warsta reasonably amount to “multimedia message bodies”, as claimed, since they include information to be transmitted, such text, images, sound, and data”.
Applicant further asserts, "Warsta discloses that the 'adapted content' contain different, not the same, underlying content. The very purpose of Warsta's adaptations is to omit material to meet size constraints, such that the receiving device "does not receive the same content" [Response, 12].
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2111, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.
The limitation, “two multimedia message bodies that are for same content”, does not define the at least two multimedia message bodies to be the same content, but rather, the limitation describes that the at least two multimedia message bodies are for the same content.
Applicant’s specification does not explicitly define the meaning of “for same content”. The closest to a definition/explanation as to Applicant’s intended meaning of the limitation, recites, “For example, the network device may generate, by adjusting definition, a length, a format, a pixel, and the like of the content, the at least two multimedia message bodies based on the content” (Applicant’s Specification, [0084]).
That is, Applicant’s specification describes that the at least two multimedia message bodies, are in fact different from one another based on the various listed adjustments above, and therefore they are not themselves the same content, but rather they are based on the same content.
Furthermore, it is apparent that Applicant’s Specification covers broad interpretations of bodies that are for same content, since Applicant’s specification explicitly recites that the adjustments may include “adjusting definition, a length, a format, a pixel, and the like of the content” (Applicant’s Specification, [0084]). That is, Applicant’s specification allows for any type of adjustment between the multiple message bodies.
Warsta’s teachings include fulfilling a particular content retrieval request by providing a version of the adapted content that meets the capabilities of the device. That is, the selected adapted content version is selected from multiple adapted content versions to fulfill the content request and therefore the multiple adapted content versions reasonably amount to multimedia message bodies that are “for same content”, as claimed.
Applicant’s assertion, “The very purpose of Warsta's adaptations is to omit material to meet size constraints, such that the receiving device "does not receive the same content" is found unpersuasive, for two reasons:
1. Per the above explanation, the breadth of the claim reasonably includes multimedia message bodies that may omit some material of the content, because the only requirement of the claim is that the bodies are “for same content”, i.e. based on the same content. Whether or not adaptations may have omitted some of the material of the content, does not preclude the fact that the adaptations are still for the same content, i.e. based on the same content.
2. Applicant’s asserted purpose of Warsta is not entirely consistent with Warsta’s teachings. Warsta provides other examples, including an explicit example of content adaptation to “include an image that exceeds the memory constraints of the destination device, in which case the image may be adapted, e.g., reduced in size, such that the adapted image would fall under the size limit imposed by the destination unit” (Warsta, [0004]). It is entirely evident from this example that the adapted content cached by Warsta is not solely with respect to omitting material, but also reducing the size for same content.
For the reasons above, the rejection is respectfully maintained.
It is the Examiner’s position that Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which define the operation and apparatus of Applicant’s disclosed invention in manner, which distinguishes over the prior art.
Failure for Applicant to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims with scope parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to more clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leveque et al. (US 20120209956) disclosed caching both original and adapted messages (Leveque, [0132]) including the caching of multimedia message bodies (Leveque, [0163]).
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 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 JERRY B DENNISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:50.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/JERRY B DENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409