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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-10 and 12 are drawn to a apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium for classifying log with respect to chronology, classified in CPC G06F11/079.
II. Claim 11 is drawn to apparatus for tracking operation invocation, classified in CPC G06F16/1774.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions of group I and group II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because group I uses a apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium for classifying log with respect to chronology. The subcombination has separate utility such as group II uses a tracking operation invocation.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
During a telephone conversation with Morgan Stevenson on 10/6/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse of the invention of group I, claims 1-10 and 12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 11 has been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adelstein et al (hereinafter Adelstein) US Publication No 20090288164.
As per claim 1, Adelstein teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to: obtain, as log information of an operation performed on a digital file stored in a common region of the information processing apparatus, a first operation log recorded in the information processing apparatus and a second operation log recorded in a client device which has downloaded the digital file;
(Paragraphs [0072], [0118] and [0164], wherein the shared/collaboration environment is the common region as recited in paragraph [0010] of the instant specification)
and classify each of the obtained first operation log and second operation log as an operation log which is chronologically fixed or as an operation log which is not chronologically fixed, based on a recording time at which each of the first and second operation logs is recorded and a time at which the second operation log is obtained.
(Paragraphs [0014], [0054], [0072], [0080] and [0106])
As per claim 2, Adelstein teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to obtain one or more second operation logs which has not or have not yet been sent to the information processing apparatus, the one or more second operation logs being sent together from the client device at a predetermined timing.
(Paragraph [0149])
As per claim 9, Adelstein teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform control to present information to a user so as to allow the user to distinguish the operation log which is chronologically fixed and the operation log which is not chronologically fixed from each other.
(Paragraphs [0014], [0054], [0072], [0080] and [0106])
As per claim 10, Adelstein teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to present, as the information, information showing that, on a list including the operation log which is chronologically fixed and the operation log which is not chronologically fixed, an external appearance of the operation log which is chronologically fixed and an external appearance of the operation log which is not chronologically fixed are different from each other.
(Paragraphs [0106] and [0109])
Claim 12 is non-transitory computer medium storing claim corresponding to processing apparatus claim 1 and it is rejected under the same rational 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adelstein in view of Endo et al (hereinafter Endo) US Publication No. 20200125379.
As per claim 3, Adelstein does not explicitly teach operation log whose recording time is earlier than the specified earliest time as an operation log which is chronologically fixed and an operation log whose recording time is later than the specified earliest time as an operation log which is not chronologically fixed, however in analogous art of record management, Endo teaches:
identify, for each client device, a latest time at which second operation logs have been obtained, and specify an earliest time among the identified latest times, based on content of each of the second operation logs;
(Paragraphs [0059], [0073], [0104], [0106] and [0114], wherein write is the content according to paragraph [0045] of the instant specification)
and classify, among the obtained first operation logs and second operation logs, an operation log whose recording time is earlier than the specified earliest time as an operation log which is chronologically fixed and an operation log whose recording time is later than the specified earliest time as an operation log which is not chronologically fixed.
(Paragraphs [0059], [0073], [0104], [0106] and [0114])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Adelstein and Endo by incorporating the teaching of Endo into the method of Adelstein. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Endo into the system of Adelstein for the purpose of tracking I/O operation and managing log generation accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. 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.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 10/7/2025