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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If Applicant fails to provide a sufficiently descriptive title, Examiner will do so upon allowance of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “further based consistency of a data ID”. Examiner assumes this is a typographical error and Applicant intended to claim “further based on consistency of a data ID”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17) recites “the second electronic device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “at least one second electronic device”, and thus it is unclear to which of the at least one second electronic device(s) this limitation is referring. In other words, it is unclear to which of the potentially plural second electronic devices “the second electronic device” is referring. The scope of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are indefinite. The dependent claims are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency upon the independent claims.
Additionally, claims 2 and 10 recite “the synchronization information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claims previously recite “second synchronization information” (e.g., see claim 1), and thus it is unclear whether “the synchronization information” is meant to refer to the claimed “second synchronization information”. Additionally, claims 3 and 11 further recite “the second electronic device”, and these limitations lack antecedent basis as discussed above with reference to claims 1, 9, and 17. The scope of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus these claims (and the claims which depend upon them) are indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Almeida Forjaz de Lacerda et al. (US 2019/0373058; hereinafter ‘Lacerda’).
Regarding claim 1, Lacerda discloses a data transmission method, comprising: receiving, by a first electronic device, at least one piece of second synchronization information in response to starting a collaborative application (abstract, figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41, see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 44-50, peer discovery and pairing process disclosed; see also ¶ 54-69, device browses for unpaired device in response to trigger provided by an application execution, device obtains a device definition record from another device),
wherein the at least one piece of second synchronization information is synchronization information of at least one second electronic device, and wherein the at least one piece of second synchronization information is in a one-to-one correspondence with the at least one second electronic device (figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41, see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 44-50, peer discovery and pairing process disclosed; see also ¶ 54-69, device obtains a device definition record from another device to establish secure communication channel and implement data synchronization);
determining, based on the at least one piece of second synchronization information, whether the first electronic device is collaboratively synchronized with the at least one second electronic device (figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41, see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 44-50, peer discovery and pairing process disclosed; see also ¶ 54-69, device obtains a device definition record from another device to establish secure communication channel and implement data synchronization; see also figs. 6-7);
determining, in response to the first electronic device being collaboratively synchronized with the at least one second electronic device, a first data transmission manner based on a quantity of second electronic devices or a network status between the first electronic device and the second electronic device (fig. 3, figs. 6-7, ¶ 70-82, synchronization data set is transmitted via peer-to-peer or network channel based on, e.g., bandwidth, time, size);
and transmitting to-be-synchronized data to the at least one second electronic device in the first data transmission manner (fig. 3, figs. 6-7, ¶ 70-82, synchronization data set is received via the selected communication channel).
Regarding claim 2, Lacerda discloses wherein the synchronization information comprises an identifier (ID) of an electronic device, an ID of the collaborative application, and a data ID, and wherein the data ID indicates data displayed on the electronic device (figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41, see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 44-50, peer discovery and pairing process disclosed; see also ¶ 54-69, device obtains a device definition record from another device to establish secure communication channel and implement data synchronization, e.g., name, service type, any or all of the information obtained from the advertisement data is presented and user is prompted for approval; device definition record can include a set of services supported by the device and/or other relevant characteristics that determine how to control, connect with, or otherwise interact with the device; see also ¶ 29, ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 8, Lacerda discloses wherein the method further comprises: transmitting, in response to the first electronic device being normally synchronized with the at least one second electronic device, the to-be-synchronized data to the at least one second electronic device in a second data transmission manner, wherein a delay of the first data transmission manner is less than a delay of the second data transmission manner (fig. 3, figs. 6-7, ¶ 70-82, synchronization data set is transmitted via peer-to-peer or network channel based on, e.g., bandwidth, time, size; time required to transfer data is determined, if time required is not less than a threshold then data set is not suitable for transfer via peer-to-peer channel; i.e., peer-to-peer channel has less delay than network channel).
Regarding claim 9, Lacerda discloses an electronic device, wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device and comprises: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable memories storing one or more computer programs, wherein the one or more computer programs comprise instructions for execution by the one or more processors (abstract, figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41; see also figs. 12-13, ¶ 5-6, ¶ 23).
The remaining limitations of claim 9 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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 3-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacerda in view of Lau et al. (US 2020/0126513).
Regarding claim 3, Lacerda discloses performing, before determining the first data transmission manner: determining the network status between the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on the at least one piece of second synchronization information (fig. 3, figs. 6-7, ¶ 70-82, synchronization data set is transmitted via peer-to-peer or network channel based on, e.g., bandwidth, time, size).
Lacerda fails to explicitly disclose determining the quantity of second electronic devices based on the at least one piece of second synchronization information.
Lau teaches determining the quantity of second electronic devices based on the at least one piece of second synchronization information (fig. 1, ¶ 56, hybrid approach combines peer-to-peer and server connections; for a certain number of users, e.g., less than two or less than four, the system can user peer-to-peer connections; once a maximum number of users is surpassed, connection to central server is used for communication).
Lacerda and Lau are both directed to networks for collaborative applications between plural devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Lacerda with the hybrid approach of Lau since such a modification combines peer-to-peer and server connections (Lau, ¶ 56) and enables connection monitoring to determine the best data to send to each device (Lau, ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 4, Lacerda discloses performing, before determining the quantity of second electronic devices based on the at least one piece of second synchronization information: determining, based on consistency of an identifier (ID) of a collaborative application in first synchronization information with the ID of the collaborative application in the at least one piece of second synchronization information (figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41, see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 44-50, peer discovery and pairing process disclosed; see also ¶ 54-69, device obtains a device definition record from another device to establish secure communication channel and implement data synchronization, e.g., name, service type, any or all of the information obtained from the advertisement data is presented and user is prompted for approval; device definition record can include a set of services supported by the device and/or other relevant characteristics that determine how to control, connect with, or otherwise interact with the device; see also ¶ 29, ¶ 39),
and further based consistency of a data ID in the first synchronization information with the data ID in the at least one piece of second synchronization information, that the first electronic device is collaboratively synchronized with the at least one second electronic device (figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41, see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 44-50, peer discovery and pairing process disclosed; see also ¶ 54-69, device obtains a device definition record from another device to establish secure communication channel and implement data synchronization, e.g., name, service type, any or all of the information obtained from the advertisement data is presented and user is prompted for approval; device definition record can include a set of services supported by the device and/or other relevant characteristics that determine how to control, connect with, or otherwise interact with the device; see also ¶ 29, ¶ 39),
wherein the first synchronization information is synchronization information of the first electronic device (figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41, see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 44-50, peer discovery and pairing process disclosed; see also ¶ 54-69, device obtains a device definition record from another device to establish secure communication channel and implement data synchronization).
Regarding claim 5, Lacerda discloses wherein the quantity of second electronic devices is 1 (figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41, see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 44-50, peer discovery and pairing process disclosed; see also ¶ 54-69, device obtains a device definition record from another device to establish secure communication channel and implement data synchronization),
and wherein the network status between the first electronic device and the second electronic device is a near field network state (fig. 3, figs. 6-7, ¶ 70-82, synchronization data set is transmitted via peer-to-peer or network channel based on, e.g., bandwidth, time, size; see also fig. 4, ¶ 44-45, e.g., peer-to-peer Bluetooth disclosed);
and wherein the transmitting the to-be-synchronized data to the at least one second electronic device in the first data transmission manner comprises: sending the to-be-synchronized data to a third electronic device, wherein the third electronic device is one of the at least one second electronic device (figs. 3-7, ¶ 70-82, synchronization data set is received via the selected communication channel).
Regarding claim 6, Lacerda discloses wherein the quantity of second electronic devices is 1 (figs. 1-2, ¶ 35-41, see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 44-50, peer discovery and pairing process disclosed; see also ¶ 54-69, device obtains a device definition record from another device to establish secure communication channel and implement data synchronization),
and wherein the network status between the first electronic device and the second electronic device is a far field network state (fig. 3, figs. 6-7, ¶ 70-82, synchronization data set is transmitted via peer-to-peer or network channel based on, e.g., bandwidth, time, size; see also fig. 4, ¶ 44-45, e.g., WAN disclosed);
and wherein transmitting the to-be-synchronized data to the at least one second electronic device in the first data transmission manner comprises: sending the to-be-synchronized data to a third electronic device via a server, wherein the third electronic device is one of the at least one second electronic device (figs. 3-7, ¶ 70-82, synchronization data set is received via the selected communication channel).
Regarding claim 7, Lau further teaches wherein the quantity of second electronic devices is 3 (fig. 1, ¶ 56, hybrid approach combines peer-to-peer and server connections; for a certain number of users, e.g., less than two or less than four, the system can user peer-to-peer connections; once a maximum number of users is surpassed, connection to central server is used for communication);
and wherein transmitting the to-be-synchronized data to the at least one second electronic device in the first data transmission manner comprises: sending the to-be-synchronized data to a third electronic device, a fourth electronic device, and a fifth electronic device via a server, wherein the third electronic device, the fourth electronic device, and the fifth electronic device belong to the at least one second electronic device (fig. 1, ¶ 56, hybrid approach combines peer-to-peer and server connections; for a certain number of users, e.g., less than two or less than four, the system can user peer-to-peer connections; once a maximum number of users is surpassed, connection to central server is used for communication).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights