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. This action is responsive to application filed on 30 January 202 3 . Claims 1-2 0 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims. This action is non-final. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 30 th , 202 3 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 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 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tilbury et al. (US 20 23/0409521 A1). Regarding claim 1, Tilbury teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising operations for: monitoring application configuration to generate application configuration data ( see Tilbury , Paragraph [0069], “At step 400, the preservation system 100 receives an indication of a change to one of the tools 124.” [ An indication of a change to one of the tools may be received (i.e., monitoring application configuration to generate application configuration data). ]); reconfiguring application settings based on the application configuration data and based on a risk data list, wherein the risk data list identifies one or more data files that are at risk of becoming at least one of redundant, obsolete, and trivial ( see Tilbury , Paragraphs [0042], [0070]-[0073], “The technical registry 120 includes one or more mappings 126 indicating which of the tools 124 and/or the actions that those tools can perform apply to which of the file formats listed in the file format database 122. … At step 402, the preservation system 100 identifies file formats affected by the change to the tool. For example, the preservation system 100 may identify which entries in the file format database for which properties were extracted or validation was carried out using an older version of the tool. Identifying file formats affected by the change may comprise receiving a selection of file formats affected by the change. For example, a list of affected file formats may be prepared by a technical expert and input to the preservation system 100 at step 402. … At step 404 the preservation system 100 identifies assets affected by the change. … Where an existing identification is identified as being incorrect, the new, corrected, format is saved in metadata and the property and validation processes are repeated using the tools associated with the newly identified format. For files that were incorrectly identified in their metadata, when the correct properties have been extracted, the files may be compared against the user policy, and any necessary migrations performed, as described with reference to step 310 above.” [ The new, corrected format may be saved in metadata, and migrations may be performed (i.e., reconfigure application settings) based on mappings (i.e., application configuration data) and based on a list of affected file formats and assets (i.e. risk data list). ]); preemptively converting a data file of the data files in an existing data format to a new data format based on the reconfigured application settings ( see Tilbury , Paragraph [0073], “Where an existing identification is identified as being incorrect, the new, corrected, format is saved in metadata and the property and validation processes are repeated using the tools associated with the newly identified format. For files that were incorrectly identified in their metadata, when the correct properties have been extracted, the files may be compared against the user policy, and any necessary migrations performed, as described with reference to step 310 above.” [ The files may be converted based on the updated information. ]); attempting to verify the conversion by using the reconfigured application settings ( see Tilbury , Paragraphs [0040], [0072], “Validation that a migration from one format to another has performed successfully … At step 406, the preservation system 100 identifies the files within the assets identified at step 404. At step 408, the preservation system 100 performs a format identification process on the identified files, to ensure that the file was correctly identified in the metadata associated with that file. Where the existing identification is correct, the preservation system 100 performs property extraction and validation using the updated tool and saves the results to the metadata associated with the file.” [ The reconfigured application settings may be validated. ]); in response to determining that the conversion succeeded, receiving a request from a new application to open the data file created in the existing data format; and opening the data file having the new data format; and in response to determining that the conversion failed, sending an error message to request update of server data ( see Tilbury , Paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0072], [0073], “Validation that a migration from one format to another has performed successfully … Rendering of content (e.g., to enable a user to interact with the content) … At step 408, the preservation system 100 performs a format identification process on the identified files, to ensure that the file was correctly identified in the metadata associated with that file. Where the existing identification is correct, the preservation system 100 performs property extraction and validation using the updated tool and saves the results to the metadata associated with the file. … Where an existing identification is identified as being incorrect, the new, corrected, format is saved in metadata and the property and validation processes are repeated using the tools associated with the newly identified format. For files that were incorrectly identified in their metadata, when the correct properties have been extracted, the files may be compared against the user policy, and any necessary migrations performed, as described with reference to step 310 above.” [ A user may be enabled to interact with the content using an updated tool (i.e., receiving a request from a new application to open a data file based a successful conversion), in which an incorrect identification is determined, and then corrected (i.e., in response to determining that the conversion failed, sending an error message to request update of server data). ]). Regarding claim 2 , Tilbury further teaches: wherein reconfiguring the application settings comprises creating a mapping between the new application and the existing data format ( see Tilbury , Paragraph [0042], “The technical registry 120 includes one or more mappings 126 indicating which of the tools 124 and/or the actions that those tools can perform apply to which of the file formats listed in the file format database 122.” [ A mapping may be created between the tools and file formats (i.e., creating a mapping between the new application and the existing data format). ]). Regarding claim 3, Tilbury further teaches: wherein the server data comprises criteria, an application list, a data format list, an application and data format structure, an application to data format mapping structure, and a user profile ( see Tilbury , Paragraphs [0033]-[0035], [0042]-[0043], “The configuration data of the preservation system 100 further comprises data which may be conceptually grouped into a technical registry 120. Generally, the technical registry 120 includes information regarding known file formats and the tools that manage them within the preservation system 100. … The technical registry 120 includes a file format database 122. The file format database 122 comprises a list of all file formats known to the preservation system 100. The file format database may include data that indicates ways in which a particular file format can be identified, e.g., by inspecting the binary content of a file. … The technical registry 120 further includes tools 124, comprising one or more tools for performing actions on files in one or more of the file formats indicated in the file format database. The tools may be stand-alone software tools. An individual tool may be able to perform one or more of the following actions with respect to one or more file formats: … The technical registry 120 includes one or more mappings 126 indicating which of the tools 124 and/or the actions that those tools can perform apply to which of the file formats listed in the file format database 122. … The technical registry 126 may also include one or more predetermined preservation actions 128. The predetermined preservation actions 128 may include indications of preservation actions that may be used with particular file formats and in which circumstances. Users may subscribe to particular predetermined preservation actions. For example, a user may include rules within their user policies to subscribe to one or more of the predetermined preservation actions 128. A plurality of the predetermined preservation actions 128 may be grouped to perform particular migration operations.” [ The preservation system (i.e., server data) comprises predetermined preservation actions (i.e., criteria), tools (i.e., application list), file format database (i.e., data format list), technical registry (i.e., application and data format structure), mappings (i.e., application to data format mapping structure), and user policies (i.e., user profile). ]). Regarding claim 4, Tilbury further teaches: wherein the application configuration data indicates that a default application has changed ( see Tilbury , Paragraphs [0042]-[0043], “The technical registry 120 includes one or more mappings 126 indicating which of the tools 124 and/or the actions that those tools can perform apply to which of the file formats listed in the file format database 122. … a predetermined preservation action may specify conversion of all possible textual documents to Portable Document Format (PDF), specifying all file formats that can be converted to PDF and which tools can be used to do so.” [ The mappings may indicate that a default application has changed. ]). Regarding claim 5, Tilbury further teaches: wherein the application configuration data indicates that a default data format has changed ( see Tilbury , Paragraph [0063], “At a step 300, an indication of a change to the file format database 120 is received. For example, the indication of the change may be detection of the change, or notification of the change. The change may be any change to the file format database 120. For example, the change may be addition of an entry or an update/modification of an existing entry.” [ A change to the file format database may be indicated. ]). Regarding claim 6, Tilbury further teaches: updating an application and data format structure in accordance with the new application associated with the new data format being added ( see Tilbury , Paragraphs [0068], [0070], “FIG. 4 is a flowchart depicting a process that may be carried out in response to a change in one of the identification, property extraction or validation tools in the tools 124. A change to one of these tools may occur, for example, in response to a change in a property extraction policy for a particular file format, addition of a new tool, or in response to updating of an existing tool within the tools 124. … At step 402, the preservation system 100 identifies file formats affected by the change to the tool. For example, the preservation system 100 may identify which entries in the file format database for which properties were extracted or validation was carried out using an older version of the tool. Identifying file formats affected by the change may comprise receiving a selection of file formats affected by the change.” [ The tools and file formats may be updated (i.e., application and data format structure). ]). Regarding claim 7, Tilbury further teaches: wherein the server data is updated and a new risk data list is generated ( see Tilbury , Paragraph [0064], “At step 302, the preservation system 100 may identify file formats affected by the change to the file format database. For example, the preservation system 100 may identify which entries in the file format database have changed and determine the state of those entries prior and subsequent to the change. Identifying file formats affected by the change may comprise receiving a selection of file formats affected by the change. For example, a list of affected file formats may be prepared by a technical expert and input to the preservation system 100 at step 302.” [ The preservation system identifies and updates a list of affected file formats (i.e., server data is updated and a new risk data list is generated). ]). Regarding claims 8 -20 , Tilbury teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 -7 , in method form rather than in computer program product form and system form. Tilbury also discloses a computer program product [ 0011 ] and system [00 11 ]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1 -7 , applies equally as well to those limitations of claims 8-20. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HUSAM TURKI SAMARA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6803 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday, Alternate Fridays . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Apu Mofiz can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-4080 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. HUSAM TURKI SAMARA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2161 /APU M MOFIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161