UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`14/866,234
`
`09/25/2015
`
`Masayuki KOZUKA
`
`2015-1496T
`
`3927
`
`06’2””
`- 759°
`”5044
`Wenderoth, L1nd & Ponack, L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 500
`
`Washington DC 20036
`
`OUSSIR' EL MEHDI
`
`3685
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/26/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`eoa @ wenderoth. com
`kmiller @ wenderothcom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0,7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`14/866,234
`Examiner
`EL MEHDI OUSSIR
`
`Applicant(s)
`KOZUKA et al.
`Art Unit
`3685
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 04/15/2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`7—13 and 15—17 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 7—13 and 15—17 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 09/25/2015 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[:] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`c)D None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190618
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`This communication is a Non—Final Office Action in response to a request for continued
`
`examination on 04/23/2019 as a result of the Final Action mailed on 12/14/2018.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 7—13, and 15—17 have been examined in this Application. All other claims have
`
`been cancelled.
`
`4.
`
`No new information disclosure statement has been submitted.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`5.
`
`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 May 19, 2015 has been entered.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`6.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/15/2019, page 6 regarding claim rejections under 35
`
`U.S.C §112 have been fully considered and are persuasive; therefore, the rejections are
`
`Withdrawn.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, pages 6—9, regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C §101
`
`have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Applicant argues:
`
`Page 3
`
`I. The claimed invention is directed to a specific improvement of a solution in
`
`copying content between devices / reflect an improvement in the technical field.
`
`A. The claims are analyzed based on the latest guidelines, PEG 2019, and
`
`determined to be not patent eligible.
`
`The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments. The response to arguments will
`
`be based on the latest guidelines (PEG 2019). The claims are merely directed to an abstract idea
`
`of permitting the copying of content to another entity. Such an abstract idea falls under certain
`
`methods of organizing human activity.
`
`The claims merely recite limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement the
`
`abstract idea on a computer or result in using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
`77 (4
`
`Claim 7 for instance, recites: “storing... content identification information...
`77 (L
`
`receiving the
`
`permission request code...
`
`reading... the copy permission condition...” and “transmitting copy
`
`information...” Thus, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation, amount to no
`
`more than an abstract idea of determining whether copying of content between devices is
`
`permissible. Such an abstract idea is classified under certain methods of organizing human
`
`activity.
`
`The additional elements or combination of elements in claims 7, and 12 and their
`
`dependent claims, other than the abstract idea(s) per se, amount(s) to no more than significantly
`
`more than the abstract idea itself. The claims recite the additional elements of a “server,”
`
`“apparatus,” and a “recording medium.” The elements are only recited at a high level of
`
`generality and only perform generic functions of storing data, receiving data, reading data /
`
`analyzing data, and transmitting a response or sending data based on the analysis. The claims,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 4
`
`individually or as a whole, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception. Generic computers performing generic computer
`
`functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
`
`idea. These elements are simply generic, which are recited to attempt to limit the abstract idea to
`
`a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this these elements do not integrate the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on
`
`practicing the abstract idea.
`
`Furthermore, the claims are not found to include the significance of any additional
`
`element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere
`
`instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an
`
`inventive concept. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly
`
`more to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
`
`8.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, pages 9—12, regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C §lO3
`
`have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues:
`
`1. Downs does not teach an external entity managing the copying of content to
`
`another device, wherein the copying is based on receiving a request code and information
`
`about the content.
`
`A. Downs teaches a user’s device (109) receiving content from an external entity and
`
`that a clearing house (105) controls the DRM rights including copying of content to other
`
`devices, wherein each content is identified and a request for copying is received.
`
`Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments that the teachings of Downs are only
`
`directed to a user’s device managing the copying of content to another device instead of an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 5
`
`external entity such as a server controlling such copying of content. First, Applicant concedes
`
`and confirms that the reference to Downs teaches a user being able to copy content from device
`
`to another device (Remarks, Page 11). Second, in at least the passages that the Applicant cites in
`
`their remarks, it is noted that the data rights management (DRM) of content is based on the rights
`
`the user purchased. Such DRM rights are managed by the clearing house, entity 105 in figure 6.
`
`The clearing house is recited by Dows as an enforcement agent for the content the user has
`
`purchased and manages the usage rights Whether they are to play the content or to copy the
`
`content to another device. For example, Col. 21, Ln. 23—42. Col. 11, Ln. 1—15 and Figures 5—6
`
`and all related text, disclose how the clearinghouse controls the rendering and reporting of user
`
`usage of the content. Furthermore, the clearing house performs data mining and report generation
`
`of the user’s usage of the content and reports such usage to other entities. If the user’s usage of
`
`the content is outside the DRM rights, the user will not be able to render the content.
`
`Downs:
`
`“In an alternate embodiment,
`
`the Secure Digital Content Electronic
`
`Distribution System 100 can be used to provide Content 113 securely to other
`
`businesses called Intermediate Market Partners. These partners may include digital
`
`content-related companies offering a non-electronic service, such as televisions
`
`stations or Video clubs, radio stations or record clubs, that distribute Content 113.
`
`These Partners may also include other trusted parties who handle material as part of
`
`making or marketing sound recordings, such as record studios, replicators, and
`
`producers. These Intermediate Market Partners requires clearance from the
`
`Clearinghouse(s) 105 in order to decrypt the Content 113.”
`
`“The Clearinghouse(s) 105 keeps a record of all transactions and can report
`
`them to responsible parties, such as Electronic Digital Content Store(s) 103 and
`
`Content Provider(s) 101, on an immediate, periodic, or restricted basis. This
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 6
`
`reporting is a means by which Content Provider(s) 101 can be informed of the sale of
`
`Content 113 and the Electronic Digital Content Store(s) 103 can obtain an audit trail
`
`of electronic delivery to their customers. The Clearinghouse(s) 105 can also notify the
`
`Content Provider(s) 101 and/or Electronic Digital Content Store(s) 103 if it detects
`
`that information in a SC has been compromised or does not comply with the Content's
`
`Usage Conditions. The transaction recording and repository capabilities of the
`
`Clearinghouse(s) 105 database is structured for data mining and report generation.”
`
`“Models
`
`such as wholesale or
`
`retail purchase, pay-per-listen usage,
`
`subscription services,
`
`copy/no-copy restrictions, or
`
`redistribution could be
`
`implemented through the rights management of the Clearinghouse(s) 105 and the
`
`End-User Player Application 195 copy protection features.”
`
`In efforts to advance prosecution and without conceding that the reference to Downs does
`
`not teach such argued limitation, the Examiner is introducing US. Patent Application
`
`Publication 20110252323 to Kobayashi el al. to render such arguments moot. Kobayashi teaches
`
`explicitly that a server receives a request for copying of content from one entity to another,
`
`enforcing DRM rights by insuring that the user is able to perform such copying of the content,
`
`and copying the content to another device.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 101
`
`35 USC. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
`
`or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain
`
`a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 7
`
`9.
`
`Claims 7—13, and 15—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention
`
`is directed to non—statutory subject matter.
`
`Claims 7—13, and 15—17 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible
`
`subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
`
`Claims 7—13, and 15—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention
`
`is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
`
`idea) without significantly more.
`
`Once the claims are determined to be directed toward a statutory categories, the claims are
`
`analyzed to determine if they are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a
`
`natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based upon the consideration of all of the relevant
`
`factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 7—13, and 15—17 are determined to be directed
`
`to an abstract idea of copying content from one entity to another entity based on analyzing user
`
`conditions, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. The rationale for this
`
`determination is explained as follows:
`
`The claims are merely directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 7 and
`
`12 for instance are directed to determining to allow copying of content from one entity to another
`
`based on analyzing data conditions. The claimed limitations as recited in claim 7 for instance,
`77
`(L
`
`“storing... content
`
`identification information...
`
`receiving the permission request code...”
`
`“reading... the copy permission condition...” and “transmitting copy information. ..,” under their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, amount to no more than an abstract idea of allowing the copying
`
`of content from one entity to another based on determining that user conditions are met, which is
`
`classified under certain methods of organizing human activity.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 8
`
`The additional elements or combination of elements in claims 7 and 12 and their
`
`dependent claims, other than the abstract idea(s) per se, amount(s) to no more than significantly
`
`more than the abstract idea itself. The claims recite the additional elements of “server,”
`
`“apparatus,” and a “recording medium” required to carry out the claimed limitations. The
`
`elements are only recited at a high level of generality and only perform generic functions of
`
`manipulating data by storing data, sending and receiving data, analyzing data, and determining
`
`an outcome to allow copying of content based on the analyzing of the data. The claims,
`
`individually or as a Whole, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception. Generic computers performing generic computer
`
`functions, Without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
`
`idea. These elements are simply generic, which are recited to attempt to limit the abstract idea to
`
`a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this these elements do not integrate the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on
`
`practicing the abstract idea. The type of information being manipulated and obtained and the
`
`result being generated as based on the received data / analysis of the data does not impose
`
`meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination
`
`does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. The claim is directed to an
`
`abstract idea.
`
`Furthermore, the claims are not found to include the significance of any additional
`
`element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As
`
`discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the
`
`additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a
`
`generic computer component. The claim limitations do not improving another technology or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 9
`
`technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by
`
`use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words
`
`equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a
`
`computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking
`
`the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use),
`
`effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds
`
`meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to
`
`a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic
`
`computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when viewed as a whole,
`
`nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
`
`The claims are not patent eligible.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC. 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)(l) 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.
`
`(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.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 7—13, 16—17 are rejected under 35 USC. 102(a)(1) / 102(a)(2) as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`20110252323 to Kobayashi el al. (“Kobayashi”).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 10
`
`11.
`
`Per claims 12 and 7, Kobayashi teaches all of the following limitations:
`
`a.
`
`A copy control method for copying content data stored in a portable recording
`
`medium to another recording medium, the copy control method comprising [Abstract,
`
`Figures 4—9]:
`
`b.
`
`obtaining a permission request code for requesting permission to copy the content
`
`data [Abstract, Paragraphs 0013, 0118—0119 and Figure 4 and all related text];
`
`c.
`
`reading, from the portable recording medium, content identification information
`
`for identifying the content data, the content identification information being stored in the
`
`portable recording medium [Paragraphs 0118—0155, 0193 and Figures 4—9 and all related
`
`text];
`
`d.
`
`transmitting the permission request code and the content identification
`
`information to a management server, the permission request code and the content
`
`identification information being transmitted when copying the content data from the
`
`portable recording medium to the other recording medium is selected by a user
`
`[Paragraphs 0118—0155, 0193 and Figures 4—9 and all related text];
`
`e.
`
`receiving, from the management server, copy response information having (i)
`
`information indicating that copy is permitted and (ii) a copy permission condition that is
`
`associated with a combination of the permission request code and the content
`
`identification information and that indicates a condition under which the content stored in
`
`the portable recording medium is copied to the other recording medium [Paragraphs
`
`0118—0155, 0193 and Figures 4—9 and all related text]; and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 11
`
`f.
`
`copying the content data stored in the portable recording medium to the other
`
`recording medium in accordance with the copy permission condition [Paragraphs 0118—
`
`0155, 0193, 0221—0253 and Figures 4—9 and all related text],
`
`g.
`
`wherein the copy permission condition includes a condition that a file format of
`
`content data obtained as a result of copying be selected from a plurality of predetermined
`
`file formats [Paragraphs 0221—0253, 0276—0279 and Figures 4—9 and all related text ];
`
`h.
`
`wherein, in copying, one of the plurality of file formats selected by the user is
`
`received, and the content data is copied in the received file format [Paragraphs 0221—
`
`0253, 0276—0279 and Figures 4—9 and all related text].
`
`12.
`
`Per claims 8, and 13, Kobayashi teaches wherein, in obtaining, user identification
`
`information for identifying a user is received, and received user identification information is
`
`received as the permission request code [Paragraphs 0118—0155, 0193, 0221—0253 and Figures 4—
`
`9 and all related text].
`
`13.
`
`Per claim 9, Kobayashi teaches generating the permission request code managed in
`
`association with the content identification information; registering the generated permission
`
`request code to the copy permission condition storage; and providing the permission request
`
`code and the content identification information for a server managed by a content provider that
`
`manufactures the portable recording medium [Paragraphs 0104, 0110, 0118—0155, 0193, 0221—
`
`0253 and Figures 4—9 and all related text].
`
`14.
`
`Per claim 10, Kobayashi teaches obtaining the combination of the content identification
`
`information and the user identification information and the copy permission condition associated
`
`with the combination from the server managed by the content provider that manufactures the
`
`portable recording medium; registering, to the copy permission condition storage, the content
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 12
`
`identification information, the user identification information, and the copy permission condition
`
`obtained by the obtainer [Paragraphs 0104, 0110, 0118—0155, 0193, 0221—0253 and Figures 4—9
`
`and all related text].
`
`15.
`
`Per claims ll, and 17, Kobayashi teaches wherein, in copying, a bind method selected by
`
`the user is received, and the content data is copied using the bind method, wherein the bind
`
`method is a deVice bind method in which only copying to a certain deVice is permitted, a media
`
`bind method in which only copying to a certain type of recording medium is permitted, or a
`
`domain bind method in which only copying to a certain domain in a network is permitted,
`
`wherein, in the transmitting a result of copying of the content data is transmitted, and wherein the
`
`result of the copying includes information indicating the bind method used for copying the
`
`content data [Abstract, Paragraphs 0118—0155, 0193, 0221—0253, 0276—0279, 0502-0504 and
`
`Figures 4—9 and all related text].
`
`16.
`
`Per claim 16, Kobayashi teaches wherein the copy permission condition includes a first
`
`condition under which only copying to a certain deVice is permitted, a second condition under
`
`which only copying to a certain type of recording medium is permitted, and a third condition
`
`under which only copying to a certain domain in a network is permitted, and wherein, in the
`
`copying, the first condition, the second condition, or the third condition selected by the user is
`
`received, and the content data is copied under the first condition, the second condition, or the
`
`third condition selected by the user [Paragraphs 0118—0155, 0193, 0221—025 3, 0276-0279 and
`
`Figures 4—9 and all related text].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 13
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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.
`
`17.
`
`Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as
`
`applied to claims 7, and 12 above, and further in view of US. Patent Application Publication
`
`2008/0072072 to Muraki et a1. (“Muraki”).
`
`18.
`
`Per claim 15 , Kobayashi teaches specifying the type of format for the content, as
`
`indicated above; however, Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of file
`
`formats include a transport stream format and an MP4 format.
`
`Muraki teaches wherein the plurality of file formats include a transport stream format and
`
`an MP4 format [Paragraphs 0112—0113, 0200, 0248].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date to combine the teachings of Kobayashi, which teaches copying content from one device to
`
`another using different formats to include the teachings of Muraki to explicitly teach that such
`
`formats include transport stream and MP4 in motivation of enhancing user experience.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270—0191.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached on M—F 9AM — 5PM.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 14
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Neha W. Patel can be reached on 571—270—1492. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization Where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—270—1191.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to
`
`the automated information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—
`
`1000.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`El Mehdi Oussir
`
`/El Mehdi Oussir/
`
`Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
`06/20/2019
`
`