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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that Bisti does not disclose analyzing datastore for purpose of locating a specific clip for deletion. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bisti discloses (¶0027) that the user connects to the web server over a network where the user defines the policies for protecting video files stored on the device; (¶0034, ¶0038, ¶0044) the device checks/analyzes particular video files, which are stored in the open/protected storage area of the storage, associated with environmental factors such as current location of the device to determine whether to apply the policy of deleting video file.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that Bisti does not teach deleting the video clip from analyzing a datastore. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bisti discloses (¶0038, ¶0041, ¶0044) that the device determines whether the removal or removal and replacement processing of the file needs to be performed in the unprotected storage location, and further either deletes or delete and replace the video file from the device as represented in Fig. 2B.
Moreover, Applicant alleges that Bisti neither teaches a data structure comprising information associated with the video clip that is automatically input as a replacement, nor does it teach that such a data structure is a file that is capable of being located, extracted and viewed from the datastore after the video clip has been deleted. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bisti discloses (¶0038, ¶0041, ¶0044, ¶0050) that when the device determines to replace the original video file from the storage, it removes and replaces the file with a substitute file/placeholder where the substitute file is stored in the storage in place of the original video file as represented in Fig. 4; the substitute file is created by using metadata from the original file such as time stamp, sequence number, file type, etc. where the device can access the substitute file; (claims 3 and 5) the device uses the substitute file in place of the file in the storage area to access the file/content.
Based on this teaching, it is clear that Bisti checks/analyzes files stored in the storage to determines whether to remove and replace the file with the substitute file and uses the substitute file for access. Therefore, it moots Applicant’s arguments and the rejection is maintained.
With regard to the dependent claims, the respective rejections are maintained as Applicant has only argued that Bisti does not cure the deficiencies, nevertheless it is the Examiner's contention that Bisti does not contain any deficiencies. See the rejection below.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub 2023/0080084 to Bisti (“Bisti”).
Regarding claim 1, “A method comprising: receiving, by a device, an electronic instruction corresponding to a deletion action for a stored video clip” reads on the method/device that receives and stores a video file on the device (abstract) disclosed by Bisti and represented in Figs. 3 and 4. Bisti further discloses (¶0023, ¶0038, ¶0042) that the device receives an instruction to delete the original video file as represented in Fig. 3 (element 320).
As to “analyzing, by the device, over a network, a datastore comprising an account of a user, the account comprising a collection of video clips corresponding to captured activity at a location associated with the user” Bisti discloses (¶0027) that the user connects to the web server over a network where the user defines the policies for protecting video files stored on the device; (¶0034, ¶0038, ¶0044) the device makes determination whether to apply the policy of deleting video file to particular video files associated with environmental factors such as current location of the device.
As to “locating, by the device, based on the analysis, the video clip within the datastore in association with the user account” Bisti discloses (¶0041) that the system determines an original file associated with the device can be deleted.
As to “deleting, by the device, the video clip from the user account” Bisti discloses (¶0038, ¶0041, ¶0044) that the device determines whether to delete/remove and replace processing of the file needs to be performed in the unprotected storage location, and further removes the file by replacing the video file with the substitute file from the device as represented in Fig. 2B.
As to “modifying, by the device, based on the deletion, the datastore by automatically inputting a data structure in place of the video clip at a location within the datastore previously held by the video clip, the data structure comprising information associated with the video clip, the data structure being a file that is capable of being located, extracted and viewed from the datastore” Bisti discloses (¶0038, ¶0041, ¶0044, ¶0050) that when the device determines to replace the original video file from the storage, it removes and replaces the file with a substitute file/placeholder where the substitute file is stored in the storage in place of the original video file as represented in Fig. 4; the substitute file is created by using metadata from the original file such as time stamp, sequence number, file type, etc. where the device can access the substitute file; (claims 3 and 5) the device uses the substitute file in place of the file in the storage area to access the file/content.
Regarding claim 2, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: capturing, by a camera associated with the device, the video clip” Bisti discloses (¶0042, ¶0047) that the camera is used for capturing photos and videos.
As to “determining, by the device, the information associated with the video clip; and storing, in the datastore, in association with the account of the user, the video clip and the information associated with the video clip” Bisti discloses (¶0038) that the device generates and stores the original video file along with its metadata such as particular location/time/size.
Regarding claim 3, “The method of claim 1, wherein the information associated with the video clip comprises information related to an origin of the video clip, date and time, wherein the information is configured as metadata for the video clip” Bisti discloses (¶0034, ¶0037-¶0038) that the metadata of the original file includes time stamp comprising date/time, sequence number, file type along with the environmental factors such as geographic/current location of the device.
Regarding claim 4, “The method of claim 1, wherein the electronic instruction is related to at least one of a user input for performing the deletion action, and an automatically generated instruction, wherein the automatically generated instruction is based on at least one of a time, date, activity, event and account setting” Bisti discloses (¶0042, ¶0044-¶0045) that the device take actions to delete file(s) where the action can be performed automatically in accordance with the policy or they may require user intervention/approval where the policy is in place for different file types, files created at different times (e.g., particular days or times of day), files created in different geographic locations, files of particular sizes, files following particular naming conventions, etc.
Regarding claim 5, “The method of claim 1, wherein the delete action comprises overwriting the video clip with the data structure” Bisti discloses (¶0038, ¶0041, ¶0044, ¶0050) that the device deletes/replaces the original video file with a substitute file/placeholder where the substitute file is stored in the storage in place of the original video file as represented in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 9, see rejection similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection similar to claim 1. Furthermore, Bisti discloses (¶0081) that the tangible storage medium readable by the processor where the software is stored as instructions for execution by the processor.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection similar to claim 5.
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 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisti in view of US PG Pub 2019/0146661 to Hauser (“Hauser”).
Regarding claim 6, “The method claim 1, further comprising: creating, based on the information associated with the video clip, the data structure, the data structure…configured to be inserted in the datastore at the location” Bisti discloses (¶0038, ¶0041, ¶0044, ¶0050) that the device deletes/replaces the original video file with a substitute file/placeholder where the substitute file is stored in the storage in place of the original video file as represented in Fig. 4; the substitute file is created by using metadata from the original file such as time stamp, sequence number, file type, etc. where the device can access the substitute file.
Bisti meets all the limitations of the claim except “the data structure being an interface object (IO)...” However, Hauser discloses (¶0003, ¶0043-¶0044) that the system creates/deletes user interface objects where files/applications represented by the user interface object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bisti’s system by using an interface object for the data structure as taught by Hauser in order to easily manipulate user interface objects on a display (Hauser - ¶0002).
Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection similar to claim 6.
Claims 7-8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisti in view of US Patent 8,521,781 to Shapiro (“Shapiro”).
Regarding claim 7, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: creating a backup of video clip; and purging, upon performance of the input of the data structure, the backup of the video clip” Bisti discloses (¶0035, ¶0038) that based on the policy, the system copies the file that was recorded and deletes the original video file.
Bisti meets all the limitations of the claim except “purging, upon performance of the input of the data structure, the backup of the video clip.” However, Shapiro discloses (6:28-32) that the file in the original directory is deleted using metadata after the file is copied to a new directory; (6:55-67) the system examines file(s) in the new directory and optionally deletes the file in the new directory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bisti’s system by purging the backup of the video clip as taught by Shapiro in order to free up space they are using, the need to replace the file with a more recent version, and the need to remove the file so that its data will no longer be accessible to users of the file system (Shaprio - 1:56-60).
Regarding claim 8, “The method of claim 1, wherein the datastore is a media library” Shapiro discloses (6:21-22,28-31; 1:43-46) that the original/new directory structure contain thousands of files.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection similar to claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection similar to claim 7.
Conclusion
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 PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, BRIAN T PENDLETON can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425