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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous, “A Method to Automatically Synchronize Configuration Files Between Disaster Recovery Environment Controller System.” IP.com, May 23, 2021, pages 1-5, and in view of Rifkin et al (US 2008/0215639) hereafter Rifkin.
Anonymous was cited in the IDS field 08/10/2022.
As per claim 1, Anonymous teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
maintaining, by a synchronization system, a map file storing synchronization information including synchronization data identifying a source computing system and a destination computing system (fig. 2, map file, page 2, lines 16-26);
receiving a notification that an automation file on a first computing system has been updated, the notification including a first set of data including a timestamp corresponding to the update (page 3, lines 12-15, page 4, lines 8-11);
comparing the timestamp to a second timestamp, wherein the second timestamp corresponds to the automation file stored on a second computing system (page 3, lines 12-15);
based on determining a difference between the first timestamp and the second timestamp, transmitting a synchronization request to the second computing system, the synchronization including the first set of data (page 3, lines 16-21, page 4, line 12-14);
based on receiving a notification that the second computing system successfully executed the synchronization request, updating a second set of data to match the first set of data (page 4, lines 12-20); and
based on receiving a notification that the second computing system failed to executed the synchronization request, notifying a user of a required update to the second computing system (page 4, lines 17-18).
Anonymous did not specifically teach presenting, via a dashboard interface of the synchronization system, controls to schedule synchronization among different computing systems, receiving, via the dashboard interface, user input specifying a time set by a user for performing synchronization and at the time set by the user transmitting a synchronization request to the second computing system.
However, Rifkin teaches presenting, via a dashboard interface of the synchronization system, controls to schedule synchronization among different computing systems, receiving, via the dashboard interface, user input specifying a time set by a user for performing synchronization and at the time set by the user transmitting a synchronization request to the second computing system (figs. 6-14, paragraphs [0035], [0042], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of presenting via a dashboard interface of the synchronization system, controls to schedule synchronization among different computing systems, receiving, via the dashboard interface, user input specifying a time set by a user for performing synchronization and at the time set by the user transmitting a synchronization request to the second computing system as suggest in Rifkin into the GUI of Anonymous because both of these system are addressing the need to synchronize data via GUI. By incorporating the teaching of Rifkin into Anonymous’s system would expand the utility of Anonymous’s GUI by allowing the user to control the scheduling of synchronization operation ahead of time.
As per claim 2, the combination of Anonymous and Rifkin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first set of data further includes a file name of the automation file and a location of the automation file on the first computing system (Anonymous, page 2, lines 16-20,).
As per claim 3, the combination of Anonymous and Rifkin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second set of data includes the second timestamp, a file name of the automation file and a location of the automation file on the second computing system (Anonymous, page 2, lines 16-20).
As per claim 4, the combination of Anonymous and Rifkin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first set of data and the second set of data are stored in the map file (Anonymous, page 2, lines 16-20).
As per claim 5, the combination of Anonymous and Rifkin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the synchronization request instructs the second computing system to obtain the first set of data from the first computing system and to update the automation file stored on the second computing system based on the first set of data (Anonymous, page 3, lines 18-21)
As per claim 6, the combination of Anonymous and Rifkin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the synchronization request includes the first set of data and instructs the second computing system to update the automation file stored on the second computing system based on the first set of data (Anonymous, page 3, lines 18-20, page 4, lines 3-5).
As per claims 8-13, they are system claims that corresponding to the method claims 1-6. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason as the method claims 1-6 above.
As per claims 15-20, they are product claims that corresponding to the method claims 1-6. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason as the method claims 1-6 above.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous, “A Method to Automatically Synchronize Configuration Files Between Disaster Recovery Environment Controller System.” IP.com, May 23, 2021, pages 1-5, in view of Rifkin et al (US Pub 2008/0215639) hereafter Rifkin, as applied in claims 1 ad 8 above, and further in view of Barturen (US Patent 7735080).
Barturen was cited in the previous office action.
As to claim 7, the combination of Anonymous and Rifkin teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7 above. The combination of Anonymous and Rifkin did not teach wherein the first computing system is a testing environment and the second computing system is a production environment.
However, Haswell teaches wherein the first computing system is a testing environment and the second computing system is a production environment (col. 3 line 59-col. 4 line 8, describes managing and delivering software using a test and production environment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Anonymous and Rifkin to include wherein the first computing system is a testing environment and the second computing system is a production environment using the teachings of Barturen. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of managing the testing lifecycle of automation script, while adhering to efficient software delivery techniques that produce complex, safe, and effective scripts (Barturen, Col. 1 lines 17-56).
As per claim 14, it is system claim corresponding to method claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as method claim 7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/03/2025 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection (see rejection above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(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 JENNIFER N WELCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7212. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 5:30AM - 4:00PM.
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, DAVID WILEY can be reached at (571)272-4150. 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.
JENNIFER N. WELCH
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2143
/JENNIFER N WELCH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143