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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
An Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has not been submitted as of the mailing of the last Office Action dated 24 February 2026. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 May 2026 has been entered.
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 15 May 2026, claims 1, 3, 10, 12, and 19 are amended per Applicant's request. No claims were cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application, of which claims 1, 10, and 19 are presented in independent form.
The previously raised 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. A new ground(s) of rejection has been issued.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 May 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see Remarks, p. 8-10) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments, which were primarily directed to the independent claims, do not apply to any of the new references being used in the current rejection.
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 1, 3, 9-10, 12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (“Kim”) (US 2014/0297586 A1), in view of Akelbein et al. (“Akelbein”) (US 2009/0319532 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Kim teaches An electronic device comprising:
at least one output device, including a display; a communications subsystem, comprising at least one wireless interface for communicatively connecting with at least one second electronic device (Kim, [0042-0043], where mobile device 100 includes an input-output unit 120 for displaying information (see, e.g., Kim, [0063] and [0067]), and a communication unit 140 that is, e.g., a module that transmits and/or receives information from the cloud storage server 300 (Kim, [0049]) (i.e., “at least one second electronic device”) via a wireless communication network (Kim, [0110]));
a memory having stored thereon a multi-device storage (MDS) module; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display, the communications subsystem, and the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the MDS module, and is configured to cause the electronic device to (Kim, [0042-0043]), where mobile device 100 includes a control unit 110 that manages, processes, and/or controls one or more operations of the mobile device 100, e.g., control an output unit of the input-output unit 120 (i.e., “coupled to the display”), control the communication unit 140 to enable the mobile device 100 to perform communication such as with cloud storage server 300 (i.e., “coupled to the communications subsystem”), and perform management operations with respect to files stored in the memory unit 130 interworking with a cloud storage server 300, which also stores applications and programs for performing the disclosed steps (see, e.g., Kim, [0067] and [0108-0109]). The control unit 110 includes the cloud federation unit 112, which controls memory unit 130 and/or the cloud storage server 300 to interwork with each other. See also Kim, [0054], where mobile device includes one or more processors, which may be used to perform various operations of the disclosed devices. See also Kim, [0108], where the memory unit 130 may store various application programs, such as an OS program, a plurality of module programs and applications (i.e., implicitly “having program instructions”), which may be used by the control unit 110, e.g., processor (Kim, [0054]), to process and control data):
detect a delete action for a file stored on the electronic device (Kim, [0097], [0116], and [Claim 1], where the system receives a request to delete a file stored in the memory unit 130 of the mobile device 100);
in response to the delete action, … determine if a copy of the file resides on the second electronic device (Kim, [0118], where a file management unit 116 determines whether a copy of the file requested to be deleted is stored in the cloud storage server 300 in operation 13 using a cloud-synchronized-file database 132 stored in the memory unit 130 or attribute information regarding the file may be utilized, the attribute information comprising cloud federation information that indicates whether a file corresponding to a file stored in the memory unit 130 is stored in the cloud server 300 (Kim, [0058] and [0094])); and
in response to determining that no copy of the file resides on any of the at least one second electronic device, render and present a warning message on the display, prior to deleting the file, the warning message indicating that no additional copies of the file exist (Kim, [0060], [0098], and [0118-0119], where a user may be informed of whether a corresponding file of the file to be locally deleted is synchronized with or backed-up to the cloud storage server 3001 (i.e., “on the second electronic device”). If it is determined that a copy of the file requested to be deleted is not stored in the cloud storage server 300, the file management unit 116 may, prior to deleting the file, may determine to make a copy of the file to be stored on the cloud storage server (i.e., “prior to deleting the file”). This determination of whether to make a copy of the file may be based on, e.g., a query outputted to the user, asking the user whether the user wishes to store the file, or its copy, in the cloud storage server 300 is displayed through an output unit of the input-output unit 120 in operation 14. See, e.g., Kim, [0079-0080] and [FIG. 6C], where a screen is displayed (i.e., “render and present…on the display”) after receiving the request to delete files shown in [FIG. 6A], which displays the text “No Cloud”, thereby indicating to the user that these file(s) selected to be deleted are not stored in any cloud storage server 300 (i.e., “render and present a warning message on the display, prior to deleting the file, the warning message indicating that no additional copies of the file exist”)).
Kim does not appear to explicitly teach query[ing] each of the at least one second electronic device [to determine if a copy of the file resides on the second electronic device].
Akelbein teaches query[ing] each of the at least one second electronic device [to determine if a copy of the file resides on the second electronic device] (Akelbein, [0024], where storage partition 129 provided for the backup data, storage partition 131 provided for the archive data, and storage partition 133 for the HSM data, may be distinct storage media (i.e., “each of the at least one second electronic device”). See Akelbein, [0029], where each of the partitions (HSM storage partition 133, backup storage partition 129, and archive storage 131) are queried in turn, e.g., HSM storage partition 133 is queried first, and no file is found, resulting in backup storage partition 129 being queried and determined that no file is found, etc. If file is not found in archive storage partition 131, an indication that the file was not found is returned at block 521).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim and Akelbein (hereinafter “Kim as modified”) with the motivation of reducing overhead management of maintaining/updating a database with the corresponding information of whether such files exist in the secondary storage, which may particularly be taxing if there are not many storage devices being managed (e.g., such databases for quickly identifying information may be more useful when there are many secondary storage devices/content, but be an unnecessary use of resources and processing power for less data).
Regarding claim 3: Kim as modified teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein to present the warning message, the at least one processor is configured to present selectable options, prior to deletion of the file (Kim, [0119-0122], where if it is determined that a copy of the file requested to be deleted is not stored in the cloud storage server 300, a query of whether the user wishes to store the file, or its copy, in the cloud storage server 300 is displayed through an output unit of the input-output unit. See also, e.g., Kim, [FIG. 6], where options include “No Cloud”, “Confirm” (to store selected file(s) in cloud storage server) Note Kim implies multiple “options”, i.e., via the use of the language “whether” the user wishes to store the file or its copy in the cloud storage server, implying at least two options of “yes” or “no”).
Regarding claim 9: Kim as modified teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein further, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to, in response to determining that the file is unavailable on the second electronic device, render a user interface message on the display, wherein the user interface message provides an option to create a backup copy of the file (Kim, [0119], where if it is determined that a copy of the file requested to be deleted is not stored in the cloud storage server 300, a query of whether the user wishes to store the file, or its copy, in the cloud storage server 300 is displayed through an output unit of the input-output unit 120. See, e.g., Kim, [0079-0082] and [FIG. 6C], where a display of a user interface shows a message with the words “No Cloud” to indicate to the user that these file(s) selected to be deleted are not stored in any cloud storage server 300, and asks the user “Will you store selected file(s) in cloud storage server?” with the options “Confirm” or “Cancel”. As such, if a query is output to confirm whether a user wishes to store a file requested to be deleted locally in a cloud server 300, the cloud federation unit 112 generates and stores a copy of the file to be deleted in the cloud storage server 300 when a confirmation is received from the user).
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 9, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Note that Kim teaches A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions that when executed by a processor of an electronic device comprising a display and a communications subsystem that includes at least one wireless interface for communicatively connecting with at least one second electronic device, configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising [the claimed steps] (Kim, [0108], where the memory unit 130 may store various application programs, such as an OS program, a plurality of module programs and applications (i.e., implicitly “having program instructions”), which may be used by the control unit 110, e.g., processor (Kim, [0054]), to process and control data. The memory unit 130 may include Random Access Memory (RAM), embedded memory, external flash memory, floppy disk memory, and Read Only Memory (ROM) (i.e., “non-transitory computer readable medium”)).
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (“Kim”) (US 2014/0297586 A1), in view of Akelbein et al. (“Akelbein”) (US 2009/0319532 A1), in further view of Cisler et al. (“Cisler”) (US 2008/0034019 A1).
Regarding claim 2: Kim as modified teaches The electronic device of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein further, the at least one processor is configured to: copy the file to a temporary cache on the electronic device; determine a connected status of the second electronic device; and in response to determining that the second electronic device is connected to the electronic device, transfer the file to storage of the second electronic device.
Cisler teaches copy the file to a temporary cache on the electronic device; determine a connected status of the second electronic device; and in response to determining that the second electronic device is connected to the electronic device, transfer the file to storage of the second electronic device (Cisler, [0018], [0056], and [0084-0085], where temporary backups can be stored locally using, e.g., local storage device 229 when external storage is not possible, such as when unable to connect to (or access) a user-determined storage device. Backup operations can continue to be performed internally until an external storage device is reconnected. A query can be sent to a processing device, such as the backup management engine 216, to determine whether or not the system has been reconnected to an external storage device. If still unconnected to external storage, internal backup operations can continue. Backup data elements may be transferred to external storage when access is made available to the external storage device, e.g., re-coupling to, or detecting the presence of the originally selected storage device (i.e., “determin[ing] a connected status of the second electronic device”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim as modified and Cisler (hereinafter “Kim as modified”) with the motivation of avoiding potential loss of data even in a network with variable/dynamically-changing connectivity.
Regarding claim 4: Kim as modified teaches The electronic device of claim 2, wherein further, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to include, in the warning message, a suggestion to store the file to a connected one of the at least one second electronic device or upload the file to a cloud storage system (Kim, [0119-0122], where if it is determined that a copy of the file requested to be deleted is not stored in the cloud storage server 300, a query of whether the user wishes to store the file, or its copy, in the cloud storage server 300 is displayed through an output unit of the input-output unit.
Although Kim does not appear to explicitly state that this query is in the form of a “suggestion” as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Kim such that this is suggested to the user with the motivation of decreasing the chances of the user inadvertently deleting data they may want to recover later).
Regarding claim 6: Kim as modified teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein further, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: determine an origination electronic device for the file (Kim, [0038] and [0043], where cloud storage server 300 may store a requested file in an assigned memory space and perform file management operations, such as deleting or editing the stored file, in response to a request received from a different computer device other than the mobile device 100. See Kim, [0008], where files are stored in a memory space assigned in a cloud storage server as an extensible external memory of the mobile device. The existence of an “assigned memory space” assigned to a particular mobile device therefore implies that the system, when performing file management operations, “determine[s] an origination electronic device for the file” as claimed) … .
Kim as modified does not appear to explicitly teach in response to the origination electronic device being different from the electronic device: determine a connected status of the origination electronic device; and in response to determining that the origination electronic device is connected, transfer the file to a storage of the origination electronic device.
Cisler teaches in response to the origination electronic device being different from the electronic device: determine a connected status of the origination electronic device; and in response to determining that the origination electronic device is connected, transfer the file to a storage of the origination electronic device (Cisler, [0018] and [0056], where backups can be stored locally using local storage device 229 when external storage is not possible, e.g., when disconnected from a network. When a device is reconnected to the external storage device, the backup can be synced using the local temporary backups, e.g., backup data elements are transferred to external storage when access is made available to the external storage device such as re-coupling to the originally selected storage device. See Kim, [0008], [0038], and [0043] above with respect to “the origination device” (and “the origination device being different from the electronic device”)).
Although Cisler does not appear to explicitly state performing the disclosed steps “in response to” the origination electronic device being different from the electronic device as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the same steps would have been performed the same regardless of whether it was in response to the origination electronic device being different from the electronic device, or the electronic device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Cisler to perform such steps in the context of an origination electronic device being different from the electronic device as claimed, with the motivation of only attempting to perform the transfer of files when the environment/conditions are possible (i.e., a connected status), as well as avoiding failed or aborted transfers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim as modified and Cisler with the motivation of avoiding potential loss of data even in a network with variable/dynamically-changing connectivity.
Regarding claim 7: Kim as modified teaches The electronic device of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein further, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: copy the file to a temporary cache on the electronic device; determine a connected status of the second electronic device; in response to determining that the second electronic device is online, determine an available free storage space on the second electronic device; in response to determining that the second electronic device has insufficient free storage space for storing the file, determine an available free storage space of a third electronic device; and in response to determining that the third electronic device is connected and has sufficient free storage space, copy the file to storage of the third electronic device.
Cisler teaches copy the file to a temporary cache on the electronic device; determine a connected status of the second electronic device (Cisler, [0018], [0056], and [0084-0085], where temporary backups can be stored locally using, e.g., local storage device 229 when external storage is not possible, such as when unable to connect to (or access) a user-determined storage device. Backup operations can continue to be performed internally until an external storage device is reconnected. A query can be sent to a processing device, such as the backup management engine 216, to determine whether or not the system has been reconnected to an external storage device. If still unconnected to external storage, internal backup operations can continue);
in response to determining that the second electronic device is online, determine an available free storage space on the second electronic device; in response to determining that the second electronic device has insufficient free storage space for storing the file, determine an available free storage space of a third electronic device; and in response to determining that the third electronic device is connected and has sufficient free storage space, copy the file to storage of the third electronic device (Cisler, [0069] and [0073], where the user can select a primary backup device, a first alternative device and a second alternative device. See also Cisler, [0022] and [0067], where the user can designate an alternative storage device for use when a particular backup device is unavailable, e.g., one or more backup devices can be made unavailable when the computer system 102 is disconnected from the network or because the computer system 102 is out of range of a particular wireless connection. See Cisler, [0058], where a second external storage device 238 can be used as an overflow repository in the event that the first device 232 reaches capacity.
Note that Cisler implies the limitation “determine an available free storage space on the second electronic device” as claimed, as the disclosed system provides an environment in which a backup device reaches capacity (i.e., “insufficient free storage space”) with the second external storage device being used as an overflow repository, thereby implying that the system performs this step of determining how much capacity is in the backup device, in order to result in the second external storage device being used.
Although Cisler does not appear to explicitly state that this capacity is determined “in response to determining that the second electronic device is online”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Cisler such that the availability of the device is first checked with the motivation of reducing the number of checks that need to be performed (e.g., checking the capacity first before determining the availability results in two checks even when the backup device was available, as opposed to performing one check of whether the backup device is even available), thereby being more resource and computationally efficient.
See Cisler, [0085], where the Device 1 is detected as being disconnected and “Device 2” is used instead (i.e., “in response to determining that the third device is connected…”). See Cisler, [0074], where the user can temporarily or permanently continue backup operations on alternative storage devices when a primary storage device is unavailable (i.e., “copy the file to storage of the third electronic device”).
Although Cisler does not appear to explicitly state that the capacity of the second external storage device (i.e., “third electronic device”) is also checked before copying the file to storage of the second external storage device (i.e., “determine an available free storage space of a third electronic device” and “in response to determining that the third electronic device…has sufficient free storage”), Cisler implicitly discloses performing a capacity check for the primary backup device (i.e., “second electronic device”) before storing backups to the primary backup device (see Cisler, [0058]), i.e., using the alternative second external storage device as an overflow repository. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been suggested to have explicitly repeat these same checks for the second external storage device (i.e., “third electronic device”) with predictably equivalent operating characteristics (i.e., regardless of which backup device these checks are performed on, the system performs them the same), with the motivation of (1) avoiding assuming that the second external storage has capacity, thereby preventing potential data loss from attempting to store data when the storage system that has insufficient storage requirements, and (2) using the same standard checks for each designated backup device, thereby making it more algorithmically efficient and simple (thereby easier to manage)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim as modified and Cisler with the motivation of reducing potential loss of data even when backup systems may not be available or may not have sufficient storage capacities by having backups continually generated and saved somewhere.
Regarding claim 8: Kim as modified teaches The electronic device of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein further, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: compress the file to create a compressed file; copy the compressed file to a temporary cache on the electronic device; determine a connected status of the second electronic device; and in response to determining that the second electronic device is online, copy the compressed file to storage of the second electronic device.
Cisler teaches compress the file to create a compressed file; copy the compressed file to a temporary cache on the electronic device; determine a connected status of the second electronic device; and in response to determining that the second electronic device is online, copy the compressed file to storage of the second electronic device (Cisler, [0018], [0056], and [0084-0085], where temporary backups can be stored locally using, e.g., local storage device 229 when external storage is not possible, such as when unable to connect to (or access) a user-determined storage device. Backup operations can continue to be performed internally until an external storage device is reconnected. A query can be sent to a processing device, such as the backup management engine 216, to determine whether or not the system has been reconnected to an external storage device. If still unconnected to external storage, internal backup operations can continue. Backup data elements may be transferred to external storage when access is made available to the external storage device, e.g., re-coupling to, or detecting the presence of the originally selected storage device (i.e., “determin[ing] a connected status of the second electronic device”). See Cisler, [0059], where archived copies can be compressed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim as modified and Cisler with the motivation of reducing the amount of data transmission (i.e., by compressing the file, less information is transmitted), thereby increasing efficiency and speed of backups, as well as avoiding potential loss of data even in a network with variable/dynamically-changing connectivity.
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (“Kim”) (US 2014/0297586 A1), in view of Akelbein et al. (“Akelbein”) (US 2009/0319532 A1), in further view of Cisler et al. (“Cisler”) (US 2008/0034019 A1), in further view of Prahlad et al. (“Prahlad”) (US 2013/0007402 A1).
Regarding claim 5: Kim as modified teaches The electronic device of claim 4, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein further, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: determine a file storage cost for the cloud storage system; and present the file storage cost with the warning message.
Prahlad teaches determine a file storage cost for the cloud storage system; and present the file storage cost with the warning message (Prahlad, [0175], where the system determines or predicts the overall cost associated with the storage of certain information. See Prahlad, [0177], where the costing feature includes an interface console or other graphical display that allows users to display and determine costs associated with a particular application. See Kim in claim 1 above with respect to the “warning message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim as modified and Prahlad with the motivation of providing optimal cost storage configuration of storage backup data up-front (i.e., increased cost savings), which reduces potential complications of attempting to move data from one storage to another (resulting in added cost, time, etc.), thereby increasing operational efficiency.
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
2 July 2026
1 Note that this may actually be multiple (one or more) cloud storage servers 300; see, e.g., Kim, [0037].
Prosecution Insights