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
`
`01/07/2020
`- 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
`
`01/07/2020
`
`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)
`
`

`

`017/09 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 09/25/2019.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) D 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 Expade 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.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 7— 13 and 15— 17 is/are rejected.
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. 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)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 09/25/2015 is/are: a). accepted or b)(j 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)D 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)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`SD 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)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) C] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] 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 20200102
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA 0r 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 Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s response on
`
`09/25/2019 to Examiner's Non—Final communication on 06/26/2019.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, pages 6—10, regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C §101
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues:
`
`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 amount to merely an abstract idea of determining Whether to copy
`
`content.
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments that the claims are
`
`directed to a specific improvement in copying content from one device to another. The claimed
`
`invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims were analyzed
`
`and determined to amount to merely an abstract idea of determining whether to copy content or
`
`not to another device. Such an abstract idea falls under certain methods of organizing human
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 3
`
`activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, agreements in the form of contracts,
`
`business relations, and following rules or instructions). Thus the claims are not patent eligible).
`
`Claims 7 and 12 for instance recites, in pertinent part: A method for... [copying] content
`
`data... storing... a combination of... information... receiving... the information... reading... the
`
`copy permission condition... and transmitting copy information having information indicating
`
`that copy is permitted and the read copy permission condition...
`
`The claims are directed to merely a method of determining whether to copy content by
`
`storing information, receiving the information, reading the condition, and sending data based on
`
`the condition; which amounts to mere manipulation of data.
`
`11. The presently claimed invention provides a combination of elements that reflect
`
`an improvement in the technical field of controlling copy permission as compared to
`
`conventional technology and a combination of elements that implement the judicial
`
`exception in conjunction with the various elements/machines and the elements are
`
`used in a meaningful way as disclosed in the specification.
`
`B. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application; the “machines”
`
`merely automate or implement the abstract idea.
`
`The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments. The abstract idea is not
`
`integrated into a practical application. Claims 7 and 12 for instance recite the following
`
`additional elements: an information apparatus, copy permission condition storage, portable
`
`recording medium, another recording medium, and a management server. These additional
`
`elements merely automate or process the abstract idea. The additional elements do not impose
`
`any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 4
`
`The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integrating the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere
`
`instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which does not provide
`
`an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, pages 10—12, regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C §lO3
`
`have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues:
`
`I. Kobayashi does not teach the permission request code being input to the
`
`information apparatus by a user.
`
`A. Kobayashi explicitly teaches that a user has to initiate the copying of the content
`
`from one device to another, wherein the copying execution request includes an array of
`
`data.
`
`Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Kobayashi teaches explicitly that a user
`
`must initiate a request to copy content from device to another. Figure l discloses all the elements
`
`as claimed. In Figures 1, data in a first medium is copied to a second medium using a
`
`information processing apparatus in communication with a management server. See Figure l and
`
`all related text. Figure 4 explicitly depicts that a “copy execution request” (step s11) is received
`
`by the information processing apparatus 120 before the information processing apparatus
`
`forwards the request to the management server 140. The S ll request includes “content 1D. ..
`
`content certificate 1]). .. medium identifier. . .” to name a few of the information that comprises
`
`the request S l 1. See Paragraphs 0120—0126. Thus Kobayashi does teach that various data is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 5
`
`provided to the apparatus 120 in order to execute the copy request. Without such data, the
`
`request would not be possible to complete.
`
`The fact that the claims recite the user inputting the permission request code is an
`
`obvious modification of the teachings of Kobayashi since Kobayashi teaches automatically
`
`providing such data to the apparatus 120. Manually receiving the data from a user would be an
`
`obvious modification of the teachings of Kobayashi and ultimately amounts to no more than a
`
`design choice.
`
`However, in efforts to expedite prosecution, a newly presented reference is provided that
`
`explicitly teaches a user can provide a code or data manually in order to cause a device to
`
`perform an action. See US Patent 5978619 to Kato et al.
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
`
`teachings of Kobayashi, as indicated above, to include the teachings of Kato to explicitly teach
`
`manually providing a code to a device by a user in motivation of optimizing cost management
`
`and tracking of user’s actions.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.7The 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.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 7—13, and 15—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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 6
`
`subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre—AIA the applicant regards as the
`
`invention.
`
`Claims 7 and 12 recite “the permission request code being input to the information
`
`
`apparatus by a user, the permission request code and the content identification information being
`
`transmitted from the information apparatus when copying the content data from the portable
`
`
`recording medium to the other recording medium is selected by a user.”
`
`It is not known whether the users are the same user or different users, resulting in the
`
`claims being indefinite/unclear.
`
`For purposes of examination, any teaching of a single user will be determined as reading
`
`on the claim limitations.
`
`All dependent claims are rejected for mere dependence on the rejected claims.
`
`Per claims 8 and 13, the claims recite “wherein the permission request code includes user
`
`
`identification information for identifying a user.” It is not known whether the recited “a user in
`
`the claims” is the same or different than the users recited in claims 7 and 12; therefore the claims
`
`are determined to be indefinite. For purposes of examination, any teaching of a single user will
`
`be determined as reading on the claim limitations.
`
`All dependent claims are rejected for mere dependence on the rejected claims above.
`
`Per claims 10, 16—17, the claims recite: “the user identification information,” “the third
`
`condition selected by the user is received,” “the third condition selected by the user,” and “a bind
`
`methed selected by the user is received,” it is not known whether “the user” refers to the first or
`
`second or third users as recited in claims 7~8 and 12, Therefore, the claims are determined to be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 7
`
`indefinite. For purposes of examination, any teaching of a single user will be determined as
`
`reading on the claim limitations.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 7—13, and 15—17 are rejected under 35 USC. 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 USC. 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.
`
`Claims 7 and 12 recite, in pertinent part:
`
`a. A copy control method for copying content data... the copy control method
`
`comprising:
`
`b. obtaining a permission request code for requesting permission to copy the content
`
`data, the permission request code being input. . .;
`
`c.
`
`reading... content identification information for identifying the content data...
`
`transmitting the permission request code and the content identification
`
`information... the permission request code and the content identification
`
`information being transmitted...
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 8
`
`d.
`
`receiving... 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... is copied...
`
`e.
`
`copying the content data... in accordance with the copy permission condition,
`
`f. wherein the copy permission condition includes a condition that a file format of
`
`context data obtained as a result of copying be selected from a plurality of
`
`predetermined file formats, and
`
`g. wherein, in the copying, one of the plurality of file formats selected by the user is
`
`received, the content data is converted when the received file format is different
`
`from a file format of the content data, and the content data is copied in the
`
`received file format.
`
`The claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea of determining whether to
`
`copy content or not to another device. Such an abstract idea falls under certain methods of
`
`organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, agreements in the
`
`form of contracts, business relations, and following rules or instructions).
`
`The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 7 and 12 for
`
`instance recite the following additional elements: an information apparatus, copy permission
`
`condition storage, portable recording medium, another recording medium, and a management
`
`server. The elements are only recited at a high level of generality and only perform generic
`
`functions of storing data, receiving/sending data, analyzing data, and copying data. The additional
`
`elements merely automate or process the abstract idea. These elements are simply generic, which
`
`are recited to attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 9
`
`Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it
`
`does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea; they simply automate the
`
`abstract idea. The type of information being manipulated and obtained and the result being
`
`generated as based on the manipulation of 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`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 improve another technology or 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.
`
`The claims are not patent eligible.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 10
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 7—13, 16—17 are rejected under 35 USC. 103 as being unpatentable over US.
`
`Patent Application Publication US. Patent Application Publication 20110252323 to Kobayashi
`
`el al. (“Kobayashi”), in view of US. Patent 5978619 to Kato et a1. (“Kato”).
`
`10.
`
`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, 0117—0119, 0121—0123, 0126, 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];
`
`(1.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
`f.
`
`copying the content data stored in the portable recording medium to the other
`
`recording medium in accordance with the copy permission condition [Paragraphs Ol 18—
`
`0155, 0193, 0221—0253 and Figures 4—9, 21—22, and 28 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, 21—22, and 28 and all
`
`related text ];
`
`h.
`
`wherein, in copying, one of the plurality of file formats selected by the user is
`
`received, the content data is converted when the received file format is different from a
`
`file format of the content data, and the content data is copied in the received file format
`
`[Paragraphs 0221—0253, 0276—0279 and Figures 4—9, 21—22, and 28 and all related text].
`
`Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 12
`
`i.
`
`Although Kobayashi teaches automatically providing data comprising at least
`
`content ID, content certificate ID, and medium identifier, when a copy request is
`
`initiated, as disclosed by Kobayashi in at least Paragraphs 0120—0123, Kobayashi does
`
`not explicitly disclose [. . .] the permission request code being input to an information
`
`apparatus by a user.
`
`Kato teaches [. . .] the permission request code being input to an information apparatus by
`
`a user [Col. 5, Ln. 33—67 and Figures 3—6].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`data to combine the teachings of Kobayashi, which teaches automatically providing an array of
`
`data during a copy request, to include the teachings of Kato to explicitly teach providing
`
`manually by a user a permission request code in motivation of optimizing cost management and
`
`tracking of user’s actions.
`
`11.
`
`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].
`
`12.
`
`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].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 13
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`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].
`
`14.
`
`Per claims 11, 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].
`
`15.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 14
`
`third condition selected by the user [Paragraphs 0118—0155, 0193, 0221—025 3, 0276-0279 and
`
`Figures 4—9 and all related text].
`
`16.
`
`Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, in view
`
`of Kato as applied to claims 7 and 12 above, in further view of US. Patent Application
`
`Publication 2008/0072072 to Muraki et a1. (“Muraki”).
`
`17.
`
`Per claim 15, Kobayashi teaches specifying the type of format for the content, as
`
`indicated above; however, Kobayashi in view of Kato do 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 in view of Kato, 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
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure is listed on for PTO—892.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 15
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed Within TWO
`
`MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE—MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR l.l36(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing
`
`date of this final action.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/866,234
`Art Unit: 3685
`
`Page 16
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/E1 Mehdi Oussir/
`
`E1 Mehdi Oussir
`
`Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
`01/02/2020
`
`