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 .
Detailed Action
This action is responsive to the application filed on February 24th 2025
This application is a national stage of PCT/EP2023/072534 filed 8/15/2023.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on 2/24/2025, where Applicant canceled claims 1-15 and added new claims 16-33. Claims 16-33 remain pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Figure 1 is objected due to missing labels on the rectangles and rhombuses, and missing directional arrows on the lines.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Drawings filed on 02/24/2025 are acknowledged.
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.
Claim 16-24, 32, and 33 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 16 line 4 recites “...transferring the file to be transferred...” This language is grammatically unclear. It is unclear on specifying what the file to be transferred is, if it is a new file, separate file, or if it’s the same file as mentioned in line 1.
Claim 33 is a slight variation of claim 16 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 17-24 depend from claim 16 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-21, 23, 25-27, 29, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Freyria et al. (US 20150100667 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Freyria teaches a method for transferring a file from a communication participant of a first type to a plurality of communication participants of a second type, which comprises the steps of:
transferring the file to be transferred from the communication participant of the first type to various storage devices disposed in a decentralized manner; (See in Freyria, Fig. 2, elem: 210, 204-208, and ¶30, which teaches a content delivery network and a publishing client computing device sends a file to the edge server computers)
and transferring at least part of the file from one of the various storage devices to one of the plurality of communication participants of the second type. (See in Freyria, Fig. 2, Elem: 204-208, 212. and ¶21, 31-32, which teaches the edge server computers receiving the file, and the edge server computers then are configured to provide content to one more client devices).
Regarding claim 17, Freyria teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein, for a purpose of transferring the at least part of the file, a storage device of the various storage devices is selected according to a parameter relating to a particular said communication participant of the second type. (See in Freyria, ¶32, which teaches where the content delivery network processes a server hint and determine which edge server computer the file should be available on)
Regarding claim 18, Freyria teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein at least one of the various storage devices is selected for a purpose of transferring the file according to an item of location information of the communication participant of the second type. (See in Freyria, Fig.3, Elem: 308 and ¶57, which teaches location data that can be used by the CDN to determine which edge server computer the file should be transferred to).
Regarding claim 19, Freyria teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein at least one of the various storage devices is selected for a purpose of transferring the file according to an event plan of the communication participant of the second type. (See in Freyria, ¶31, which teaches the server hint including information indicating an event of a client planning to access the file).
Regarding claim 20, Freyria teaches the method according to claim 16, which further comprises transmitting information regarding storage locations of the file to the plurality of communication participants of the second type. (See in Freyria, ¶83, which teaches providing network addresses associated with one or more edge servers where the media file can be accessed through).
Regarding claim 21, Freyria teaches the method according to claim 16, which further comprises transferring the file to be transferred to predetermined ones of the various storage devices disposed in the decentralized manner according to one attribute of the file. (See in Freyria, ¶60 and ¶65, which teaches cost values that can determine which servers will receive the file with one of the cost values surrounding the media file size).
Regarding claim 23, Freyria teaches the method according to claim 22, which further comprises transferring at least one of the plurality of files to be transferred to the various storage devices disposed in the decentralized manner according to a file size. (See in Freyria,¶61, 65-66, which teaches a cost value to transfer a file to an appropriate edge server computer, the cost value includes the media file size).
Regarding claim 25, Freyria teaches a communication system, comprising:
a communication participant of a first type; (See in Freyria, ¶25 and 30, which teaches content delivery network, originating from a publishing client computing devices).
a plurality of communication participants of a second type; (See in Freyria, Fig. 1 and ¶21, which teaches a plurality of edge server computers (104 and 106))
and data processing system with a plurality of storage devices disposed in a decentralized manner and are connected in each case by way of a network connection to said communication participant of said first type and by way of which a file is in each case transferable from said communication participant of said first type to at least one of said plurality of communication participants of said second type. (See in Freyria, ¶21, 23-24, which teaches various client devices that are configured to receive a media file)
Regarding claim 26, Freyria teaches the communication system according to claim 25, wherein said communication participant of said first type takes a form of a stationary communication participant. (See in Freyria, ¶26 and 30, which teaches an application server computer configured to provide resources)
Regarding claim 27, Freyria teaches the communication system according to claim 25, wherein at least one communication participant of said second type takes a form of a mobile communication participant. (See in Freyria, ¶23, which teaches mobile devices like a computer, laptop, cellular devices)
Regarding claim 29, Freyria teaches the communication system according to claim 26, wherein said stationary communication participant is a stationary server. (See in Freyria, ¶26 and 30, which teaches an application server computer configured to provide resources)
Regarding claim 32, Freyria teaches a non-transitory computer program having computer executable instructions which, when executed on a communication system performs the method according to claim 16. (See in Freyria, ¶101 and 103-104, which teaches instructions executed to perform the method)
Claim 33 is a different statutory category of, and is a slight variation of the rejected claim 16 above. Therefore claim 33 is rejected based on the same rationale given for 16 above.
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 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freyria et al. (US 20150100667 A1) in further view of Ow (US 20140165176 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Freyria teaches the method according to claim 16, which further comprises:
transferring a plurality of files from the communication participant of the first type to the plurality of communication participants of the second type; (See in Freyria, ¶21 and ¶30, which teaches a content delivery system that sends media file from a publishing client computing device to be delivered to client devices over a network)
Freyria fails to explicitly teach selecting at least one of the plurality of files to be transferred for a purpose of transfer to the various storage devices disposed in the decentralized manner according to at least one attribute of a selected file.
However, Ow is in the same field of invention file transferring files, (See in Ow, ¶37), and storing files off of the cloud and manage them in the system, (See in Ow, ¶77, Ln. 44-55). Ow discloses the user of the system (the claimed communication participant of the first type) selecting a media (the claimed file) they want to share with another group of people (the claimed participants of the second type) and how they want to share the media based on permissions (the claimed attribute) and can be sent to a private environment (the claimed storage devices) which can only be accessed by certain permissions. (See in Ow, ¶79, 82, and 85).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freyria’s method to include one of the plurality of files to be transferred to various storage devices according to at least one attribute. In doing so, it would provide an ease of access to user to determine which files should and could be transferred over the network.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freyria et al. (US 20150100667 A1) and in further view of Fu (US 20120084386 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Freyria fails to explicitly teach the method according to claim 16, which further comprises:
splitting the file to be transferred into data blocks;
and transferring the data blocks to the various storage devices disposed in the decentralized manner.
However, Fu is in the same field of invention of distributing and transferring objects over a network (See in Fu, ¶26). Fu discloses where a storage object (the claimed file) is divided into multiple block files (the claimed data blocks) and the block files are then delivered to specified available storage nodes (the claimed various storage devices) over a network. (See in Fu, ¶58 & ¶73).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freyria’s method to include splitting the file into data blocks and distributing the blocks. In doing so, it would make the process less resource consuming.
Claims 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freyria et al. (US 20150100667 A1) and in further view of Inoue et al. (US 6874017 B1).
Regarding claim 28, Freyria fails to teach the communication system according to claim 27, wherein said plurality of storage devices are disposed along a specified route of said at least one mobile communication participant of said second type.
However, Inoue is in the same field of invention of delivering information to mobile devices in a network. (See in Inoue, Col. 3, Ln. 3-18) Inoue discloses cache server locations (the claimed plurality of storage devices) that can be placed in a closest train station or within a local network of a train station (the claimed route). (See in Inoue, Col. 16, Ln. 22-40)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freyria’s system to include a specific route of storage devices. In doing so it would make the system more accessible to different devices and locations.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freyria et al. (US 20150100667 A1) and in further view of Naik et al. (US 20130067330 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Freyria fails to teach the communication system according to claim 27, wherein said mobile communication participant is of a vehicle.
However, Naik is in the same field of invention of delivering content to mobile devices. (See in Naik, ¶21-22). Naik teaches where the passenger device is part of the train (the claimed mobile communication participant). (See in Naik, ¶26 and ¶28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freyria’s system to include vehicles. In doing so, it promoted an ease of access for content delivery to vehicles.
Regarding claim 31, Freyria fails to teach the communication system according to claim 30, wherein the vehicle is a rail-borne vehicle.
However, Naik is in the same field of invention of delivering content to mobile devices. (See in Naik, ¶21-22). Naik teaches where the invention can be used for railway systems. (See in Naik, ¶21). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Freyria based on the teachings of Naik in accordance to the rationale given for claim 30.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELINE AYLIN IMANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0247. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/CELINE AYLIN IMANI/ 07/06/2029Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights