0Notice 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 .
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 Amendment
This Action is responsive to the Applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed on 10/01/2025. In the Amendment, applicant amended claims 1, 9 and 17.
As to Arguments and Remarks filed in the Amendment, please see Examiner’s responses shown after Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103.
Please note claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 08/29/2025 and 11/19/2025 has been considered (see form-1449, MPEP 609).
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 10/01/2025 has been acknowledged and has been approved.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US Patent 7,421,458, hereinafter Taylor), in view of Arora et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0041912, hereinafter Arora) and further in view of Chan et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0365491, hereinafter Chan).
(Note that: Chan reference (2013/0041912 Continuation in part of Appl. No. 14/674,048 and continuation in part of appl. No. 14/180021 continuation of application no. PCT/US2013/063003 file on Oct 2, 2013, with provisional application No. 61/708794 file on 10/2, 2012), wherein the application No. 14/180,021, is also disclose the features of downsize/resize/reduce to smaller/decrease item content/file version).
Further case could be allowable if the applicant further including each steps how to truncate and features of (predetermine to truncate/resize/reduce the content item to specific/threshold size).
As per as claim 1, Taylor discloses:
A method for reclaiming storage space at a computing device, the method comprising:
tracking, by an application installed on the computing device and associated with a content management system, an upload status of at least one content item locally stored within a file system of the computing device (Taylor, e.g., [col. 1, lines 55-67], “…creating versions of database objects and for tracking, querying, retrieving, and deploying such versioned database objects in enterprise databases, data marts, or data warehouses…” and [col. 14, lines 50-67], “version status check” (check status of upload/download/install));
identifying, by the application, data associated with the at least one content item indicating that a copy of the at least one content item was uploaded to the content management system (Taylor, e.g., [col. 2, lines 46-67], “… the versions of objects to be deployed can be dynamically determined by executing a query when deployment is requested… a condition for the object that indicates that it is ready to deploy…” (determine/identifying object deploying/upload)) and further see [col. 14, lines 28-50], “…identify all dependencies of the desired objects so that they too can be included in the deploy…”);
replacing, by the application, the at least one content item with a truncated version of the at least one content item within the file system of the computing device (Taylor, e.g., [col. 11, lines 35-40], “…identify all dependencies of the desired objects so that they too can be included in the deploy…”) and [col. 13, lines 1-45], “…. Replace an entire folder, copy all versions of all versioned objects and truncate all existing objects in the target. Case D. Replace an entire folder, copy only the latest version of all versioned objects and truncate all existing objects in the target… truncating the folder to be replaced…”), wherein the truncated version reduces the storage space occupied the content item; and
providing, by the application, an indication that the file system stores the truncated version of the at least one content item (Taylor, e.g., [col. 11, lines 35-40], and [col. 13, lines 1-45], “…copying only specific versions of objects specified in the group…to the target repository…”).
To make records clearer regarding to the languages of “truncated /shorten /compress version/downsize” (although as stated above, Taylor functional disclose “truncated versions” (Taylor, e.g., [col. 11, lines 35-40] and [col. 13, lines 1-45]).
However Arora, in an analogous art, discloses “truncated /shorten /compress version” (Arora, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0063], [0134], “…defined to contain summarized or truncated versions…”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Arora and Taylor to managing electronic communications, and more particularly to sharing emails and email content in a multi-tenant database and/or application service in order to reduce the capacity of the content of the object (Arora, e.g., [0005-0008]).
The combination of Arora and Taylor do not explicitly disclose the features of “wherein the truncated version reduces the storage space occupied the content item”.
However Chan, in an analogous art, discloses “wherein the truncated version reduces the storage space occupied the content item” (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072], “… creating a downsized version of the particular content item and marking the storage location of the particular content item in the local storage of the electronic device … downsized content items may be downsized again to an even smaller size, e.g., 10% of full resolution...”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Chan, Arora and Taylor to resolute of the version of a content item retained on the electronic device may be reduced or otherwise downsized to conserve storage space on the electronic device in order to keep various different types of digital content items on their electronic devices, such as photographs, videos, music, and so forth, and like to have sufficient free storage space to allow the addition of more content items when desired without having to first delete existing content items (Chan, e.g., [0002-0003]).
As per as claim 2, the combination of Chan, Arora and Taylor disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
setting, by the application, a default setting to utilize the truncated version of the at least one content item (Taylor, e.g., [col. 10, lines 53-67], “…user defined search condition… modifying user, then the search returns all versions of an object by default…”) and (Arora, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0063], [0134]) and further see (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072], “… creating a downsized version of the particular content item and marking the storage location of the particular content item in the local storage of the electronic device … downsized content items may be downsized again to an even smaller size, e.g., 10% of full resolution...”).
As per as claim 4, the combination of Chan, Arora and Taylor disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying one of the at least one content item as an email attachment (Arora, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0063], [0134]) and (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072], “… creating a downsized version of the particular content item and marking the storage location of the particular content item in the local storage of the electronic device … downsized content items may be downsized again to an even smaller size, e.g., 10% of full resolution...”);
truncating the email attachment to create a truncated email attachment (Arora, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0063], [0134], “…summarized or truncated email fields, or attachments…”) and (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072], “… creating a downsized version of the particular content item and marking the storage location of the particular content item in the local storage of the electronic device … downsized content items may be downsized again to an even smaller size, e.g., 10% of full resolution...”); and
replacing the email attachment with the truncated email attachment (Arora, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0063], [0134]), “…defined to contain a link, pointer, or other references to a full version of an email message, parsed email content, summarized or truncated email fields, or attachments…”) and (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072], “… creating a downsized version of the particular content item and marking the storage location of the particular content item in the local storage of the electronic device … downsized content items may be downsized again to an even smaller size, e.g., 10% of full resolution...”).
As per as claim 5, the combination of Chan, Arora and Taylor disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a content item from the at least one content item that is available to purge (Taylor, e.g., [col. 9, lines 35-54], [col. 12, lines 3-7], “…users to manage all types of repository objects in a central place, such as check in, purge, deploy, and the like…”) and (Arora, e.g., [0058-0064], “…user can manually add or delete associations using one or more graphical user interfaces…”); and
purging the content item (Taylor, e.g., [col. 9, lines 35-54], [col. 12, lines 3-7], (the examiner asserts, workflow manger can create/schedule connections, and the like = purging) and see (Arora, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [000061-63], [0134], (flag) (flag = urging) and further see (Chan, [0015], [0038], [0048], (“...user may select a particular one of the images from the gallery and, in response to the user selection...”).
As per as claim 6, the combination of Chan, Arora and Taylor disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the truncated version is stored on the computing device and the copy is stored at the content management system (Taylor, e.g., [col. 11, lines 35-40], and [col. 13, lines 1-45], “…copying only specific versions of objects specified in the group…to the target repository…”) and (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072], “… creating a downsized version of the particular content item and marking the storage location of the particular content item in the local storage of the electronic device … downsized content items may be downsized again to an even smaller size, e.g., 10% of full resolution...”).
As per as claim 7, the combination of Chan, Arora and Taylor disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a plurality of content items that have been stored at the computing device for a minimum period of time (Chan, e.g., [0033], [0037], “...a content item may be offloaded based on expiration of a threshold length of time since the content item was added to the local storage, based on expiration of a threshold length of time since last access, based on how frequently the content item 116 has been accessed over a period of time ...” and (Taylor, e.g., [col. 9, lines 35-54], [col. 12, lines 3-7], (the examiner asserts, workflow manger can create/schedule connections, and the like = minimum period of time); and
replacing the plurality of content items with truncated versions of the plurality of content items (Taylor, e.g., [col. 11, lines 35-40], “…identify all dependencies of the desired objects so that they too can be included in the deploy…”) and [col. 13, lines 1-45], “…. Replace an entire folder, copy all versions of all versioned objects and truncate all existing objects in the target. Case D. Replace an entire folder, copy only the latest version of all versioned objects and truncate all existing objects in the target… truncating the folder to be replaced…”) and (Arora, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0063], [0134]) and further see (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072], “… creating a downsized version of the particular content item and marking the storage location of the particular content item in the local storage of the electronic device … downsized content items may be downsized again to an even smaller size, e.g., 10% of full resolution...”).
As per as claim 8, the combination of Chan, Arora and Taylor disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying data associated with a content item (Arora, e.g., fig. 4, associating with texts description, [0058-0063], [0134], (attributes, properties of object));
determining that data similar to the data associated with the content item is stored at the content management system (Taylor, e.g., [col. 13, lines 1-45], (determining similar/identical folders/objects); and
based on the data similar to the data associated with the content item being stored at the content management system, creating a truncated version of the content item (Taylor, e.g., [col. 11, lines 35-40], and [col. 13, lines 1-45], “…copying only specific versions of objects specified in the group…to the target repository…”) and (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072], “… creating a downsized version of the particular content item and marking the storage location of the particular content item in the local storage of the electronic device … downsized content items may be downsized again to an even smaller size, e.g., 10% of full resolution...”).
Claims 3, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US Patent 7,421,458, hereinafter Taylor), in view of Arora et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0041912, hereinafter Arora) and in view of Chan et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0365491, hereinafter Chan) and further in view of Badam et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0205114, hereinafter Badam).
As per as claims 3, 11 and 18, the combination of Chan, Arora and Taylor disclose:
The method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, the system of claim 17, further comprising:
receiving, by the application, an indication to reclaim space on the computing device (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072]); and
creating the truncated version in response to the indication (Taylor, e.g., [col. 4, lines 31-40], [col. 7, lines 13-35], [col. 12, lines 1-65], “create new versions… copy all versions of all versioned objects and truncate ”).
The combination of Chan, Taylor and Arora do not explicitly disclose “receiving, by the application, an indication to reclaim space on the computing device” (although as stated above Chan disclose downsize the item which is equivalent to reclaim storage space on the computing device (Chan, e.g., [0032], [0035]-0037], [0058] and [0072])).
However Badam, in an analogous art, discloses “receiving, by the application, an indication to reclaim space on the computing device” (Badam, e.g., [0136], “…perform operations for objects within the log structure to clean up old objects stored on the storage device and reclaim unused space”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Badam, Chan, Arora and Taylor to maintain tables and to perform read-modify-writes necessary for garbage collection and for compacting live objects to minimize fragmentation of data on the storage device (Badam, e.g., 002-004]).
Claims 9-16 are essentially the same as claims 1-8 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer readable medium rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-8.
Claims 17-20 are essentially the same as claims 1-8 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a system rather a method, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-8.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/01/2025 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment to the claims. Applicant's newly amended features are taught implicitly, expressly, or impliedly by the prior art of record (See the new ground(s) of rejection set forth herein above).
the Examiner respectfully submits that, with respect to the totally newly amended subject matter, the Examiner respectfully cited proper paragraphs from cited reference to reject the claim in responsive to the newly amended, please refer to the corresponding section of the office action.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to content item purging which is a contact item purger, such as may be incorporated within a local client application of a content management system running on a user device, may leverage knowledge as to which items have been uploaded to the content management system, and how long such content items have been stored on the user device, to propose items for deletion from the user device so as to reclaim storage space.
a. Bulpitt et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0024920, hereinafter Bulpitt) “Apparatus And Method For Extracting And Using Images From On-line Forum Posts And Other Web Pages” disclose “extracting and using images from on-line forum posts and other web pages and retrieved image is altered to produce an altered image, wherein the alteration of the at least one property of the image reduces a storage space for the altered image compared to a storage space for the image and also the alteration could, for example, include decreasing a size, a resolution, or a color depth of the retrieved image”.
Bulpitt also teaches reduce a storage space for the altered version of the image compared to a storage space for the image [0013-0015], [0066].
Bulpitt further teaches resizing images associated with forum posts, the same or similar technique could be used to resize images from other web pages. Also, while shown as resizing a single image from a forum post, the same or similar technique could be used to resize any number of images from a forum post or other web page [0067].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163