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 .
The Amendment filed on 01/15/26 has been received and entered. Application No. 18/381,037 of claims 1-20 have been previously canceled and claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments did not overcome the previous, 35 USC 103 rejections.
Applicant's response, filed on 01/15/26, regarding 112(b) rejections of claims 38-40 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's response regarding 101 directed to an abstract idea of claims 21-40 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s response with respect to double patenting rejections of claims 21-40 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 21-40 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant made the following arguments:
Applicant argues regarding claims 21-40, “Ford and Hasan are directed to solving different problems in a different context, neither represents analogous art and more importantly, neither recognizes or provides a solution to the very problem of file integrity and record-keeping that is provided by the claimed invention… the Applicant's assertion that the relied-upon references are nonanalogous art, and in any case do not recognize or provide a solution to the problem addressed by the claimed invention”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that neither represents analogous art and more importantly, neither recognizes or provides a solution to the very problem of file integrity is nonanalogous art, it has been held that the determination that a reference is from a nonanalogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor's endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 171, 174. In this case, Ford discloses secure data exchange system that includes hybrid encryption management, integrated file update while Hasan teaches processes of transmitting data, a routing system and routing engine configured to receive uploaded data and transmitting the data. Therefore, the combination of Ford and Hasan discloses the claimed limitations. The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding claims 21-40, “Neither reference teaches or suggests use of a transaction journal of a hybrid cloud cache (a local storage being used in combination with a remote cloud-based platform), or the interplay between a journal entry, a transaction to be performed, and a staging area as that term and concept are disclosed in the pending application”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ford discloses in paragraphs [0125], [0146] and [0151] transaction and recording processes. Ford discloses in paragraphs [0085]-[0086] storage on local devices, connections to outside storage to cloud data storage resources (i.e. private and public clouds) and cloud storage binding in which “An analytics engine 145 may be used to track, record, and report on the uses and activities (analogous to journaling process) of the various services, modules, engines, applications and the like of the on enterprise premises system 110 to provide analytics 153 through analytics engine binding 150…the on enterprise premises system 110 may include key management services 155, such as enabling the enterprise and/or individual users to manage encryption keys used to secure and access content [0085]… transformation and filtering services 154 may provide processing that is done on a file or other asset, such as when that asset is uploaded to or downloaded from a secure exchange environment”[0086]. The Applicant recites on page 14 of the remarks “A hybrid cloud cache as recited in the claims refers to a specific architecture in which files may be modified locally, followed by upload to a cloud or remote storage. It also enables a local user to perform specific operations on a remotely stored file or file directory”. Therefore, the combination of Ford and Hasan discloses the claimed limitations. The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding claims 21-40, “Hasan and Ford do not implement a journal and/or transaction processing system, they also do not have the following features or aspects as well: • Create a transaction in the journal for every file uploaded by a user to the Hybrid Cloud Cache; • Assigning unique identifiers to files as well as versions of a file; • A need to maintain consistency and integrity using the journals and/or transaction processing system by pushing the transaction to the cloud in the same order it was received by the Hybrid Cloud Cache or any other system like the file exchange; • No system or algorithm to transform a data transaction to a metadata transaction (as occurs from execution of the claimed logic steps); and • The staging area disclosed and claimed in the present application differs in use and function from the "staged" data used in Hasan and Ford… Another difference is that the data in the staging database in Hasan is not in its original form as it is going through the extraction layer. However, in the pending application, the file data remains unchanged. And, as with the Ford reference, Hasan fails to disclose a transaction processing system and the use of a journal”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that Hasan and Ford do not have the above features stated in the Applicant’s argument, applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although the elements the Applicant argues above are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. See response to arguments IV to V above. The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,822,539 in view of claims being not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-40 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,822,539 which is the method for facilitating optimization of file upload operations via transaction transformation.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows in Table 1 below.
Instant Application
Claims 21, 29 & 38. A system, comprising: a set of computer-executable instructions; and a processor or processors that execute the set of instructions, wherein when executed,
the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising: receiving a request from a client to perform a file upload operation;
associating the requested operation with a corresponding upload transaction in a
journal of a hybrid cloud cache; determining an upload status of the file when the transaction processing system
is ready to execute the upload transaction associated with the file upload operation, wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is not already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then determining if an upload to the staging area has failed, wherein if the upload to the staging area has not failed, then waiting for the upload to the staging area to be completed and transferring the file from the staging area to the destination intended by the client; and
marking the upload transaction corresponding to the requested operation as having been completed in the journal of the hybrid cloud cache after the file has been transferred to the destination intended by the client.
Claims 25, 33 & 40. The system of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to generate a first identifier to identify the file associated with the upload transaction
and a second identifier to identify a version of the file associated with the upload transaction.
Claims 26 & 35. The system of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to discontinue tracking of the upload status of the file once the upload transaction is marked as having been completed in the hybrid cloud journal.
Claims 27 & 36. The system of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to concurrently upload a plurality of files requested to be uploaded by the client.
Claim 28. The system of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to update metadata associated with the file to indicate its location after transferring
the file to the destination intended by the client.
Claim 34. The method of claim 29, further comprising determining the upload status of the file based on one or more of the first identifier, the second identifier, metadata associated with
the first identifier, or metadata associated with the second identifier.
Claim 37. The method of claim 36, further comprising maintaining an upload status for each of the plurality of files.
Patent U.S. 11,822,539
Claims 1, 8 & 15. A system, comprising: a set of computer-executable instructions; and a processor or processors that execute the set of instructions, wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising: receiving a request from a client to perform a file upload operation; associating the requested operation with a corresponding upload transaction in a journal of a hybrid cloud cache; bypassing a transaction processing system of the hybrid cloud cache and attempting to upload the file to a staging area of a cloud system that is part of the hybrid cloud cache; determining an upload status of the file when the transaction processing system is ready to execute the upload transaction associated with the file upload operation, wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then transferring the file from the staging area to a destination intended by the client; if the upload status indicates that the file is not already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then determining if an upload to the staging area has failed, wherein if the upload to the staging area has not failed, then waiting for the upload to the staging area to be completed and transferring the file from the staging area to the destination intended by the client; if the upload to the staging area has failed, then uploading the file to the destination intended by the client; and marking the upload transaction corresponding to the requested operation as having been completed in the journal of the hybrid cloud cache after the file has been transferred to the destination intended by the client.
Claims 2, 9 & 16. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to generate a first identifier to identify the file associated with the upload transaction and a second identifier to identify a version of the file associated with the upload transaction.
Claims 3 & 11. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to discontinue tracking of the upload status of the file once the upload transaction is marked as having been completed in the hybrid cloud journal.
Claims 4, 12 & 18. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to concurrently upload a plurality of files requested to be uploaded by the client.
Claims 7, 14 & 20. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to update metadata associated with the file to indicate its location after transferring the file to the destination intended by the client.
Claims 10 & 17. The method of claim 9, further comprising determining the upload status of the file based on one or more of the first identifier, the second identifier, metadata associated with the first identifier, or metadata associated with the second identifier.
Claims 5, 13 & 19. The system of claim 4, wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to maintain an upload status for each of the plurality of files.
Table 1
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-40 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,822,539 which is the method for facilitating optimization of file upload operations via transaction transformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of a method for optimization of file upload operations via transaction transformation at the time the invention was made to incorporate a process of bypassing a transaction processing system of the hybrid cloud cache from the independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,822,539.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 21, 29, and 38 recite associating the requested operation with a corresponding upload transaction in a journal of a hybrid cloud cache; determining an upload status of the file when the transaction processing system is ready to execute the upload transaction associated with the file upload operation, determining if an upload to the staging area has failed, wherein if the upload to the staging area has not failed, then waiting for the upload to the staging area to be completed, marking the upload transaction corresponding to the requested operation as having been completed in the journal of the hybrid cloud cache after the file has been transferred to the destination intended by the client.
The limitations of associating…, determining…, waiting…, marking…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “system…,” “of “associating…, determining…, waiting…, marking…,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually associating requested operation with upload transaction, determining upload status, determining if upload has failed, marking upload transaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – perform…, receiving…, transferring…. The “perform” limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “receiving” and “transferring” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Perform” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “receiving” and “transferring” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (data gathering, outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 22 recites wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising bypassing the transaction processing system of the hybrid cloud cache and attempting to upload the file to a staging area of a cloud system that is part of the hybrid cloud cache prior to assessing upload status. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., perform, upload) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 23 and 31 recite wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising if the upload status indicates that the file is already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then transferring the file from the staging area to a destination intended by the client. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., perform, transferring) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 24 and 32 recite wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising if the upload to the staging area has failed, then uploading the file to the destination intended by the client. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., perform, uploading) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 25, 33 and 40 recite wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to generate a first identifier to identify the file associated with the upload transaction and a second identifier to identify a version of the file associated with the upload transaction. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generate, identify) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 26 and 35 recite wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to discontinue tracking of the upload status of the file once the upload transaction is marked as having been completed in the hybrid cloud journal. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., discontinue) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 27 and 36 recite wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to concurrently upload a plurality of files requested to be uploaded by the client. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., upload) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 28 recites wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising bypassing the transaction processing system of the hybrid cloud cache and attempting to upload the file to a staging area of a cloud system that is part of the hybrid cloud cache prior to assessing upload status. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., perform, upload, accessing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 30 recites bypassing the transaction processing system of the hybrid cloud cache and attempting to upload the file to a staging area of a cloud system that is part of the hybrid cloud cache. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., upload) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 34 recites determining the upload status of the file based on one or more of the first identifier, the second identifier, metadata associated with the first identifier, or metadata associated with the second identifier. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 37 recites maintaining an upload status for each of the plurality of files. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., maintaining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 39 recites bypassing the transaction processing system of the hybrid cloud cache and attempting to upload the file to a staging area of a cloud system that is part of the hybrid cloud cache; wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then transferring the file from the staging area to a destination intended by the client; and wherein if the upload to the staging area has failed, then uploading the file to the destination intended by the client. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., bypassing, upload, transferring, uploading) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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 of this title, 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0041296; hereinafter “Ford”) in view of Hasan et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0241458; hereinafter “Hasan”).
As per claims 21, 29, and 38, Ford discloses a transaction processing system, comprising: a set of computer-executable instructions; (See paras. 371-372, wherein instructions are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
and a processor or processors that execute the set of instructions, wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising: (See para. 118, wherein processors are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
receiving a request from a client to perform a file upload operation; (See Fig. 46, paras. 68, 70, and 109, wherein upload operations are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
associating the requested operation with a corresponding upload transaction in a journal of a hybrid cloud cache; (See paras. 70, 86, and 109 wherein upload operations are disclosed, also See paras. 146 and 151, wherein upload transactions are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
determining an upload status of the file when the transaction processing system is ready to execute the upload transaction associated with the file upload operation, (See paras. 116 and 152, wherein status data are disclosed, also See paras. 70, 86, and 109 wherein upload operations are disclosed, also See paras. 146 and 151, wherein upload transactions are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
and marking the upload transaction corresponding to the requested operation as having been completed in the journal of the hybrid cloud cache after the file has been transferred to the destination intended by the client. (See paras. 177-180 and 182, wherein marking a document is disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
However, Ford fails to disclose wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is not already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then determining if an upload to the staging area has failed, wherein if the upload to the staging area has not failed, then waiting for the upload to the staging area to be completed and transferring the file from the staging area to the destination intended by the client.
On the other hand, Hasan teaches wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is not already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then determining if an upload to the staging area has failed, (See Fig. 3, paras. 24, 431-433, wherein staging database are disclosed, also See para. 514, wherein portal service functions are disclosed; as taught by Hasan.)
wherein if the upload to the staging area has not failed, then waiting for the upload to the staging area to be completed and transferring the file from the staging area to the destination intended by the client. (See Fig. 3, paras. 24, 431-433, wherein staging database and transferring are disclosed, also See paras. 514-515, wherein portal service functions are disclosed; as taught by Hasan.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Hasan teachings in the Ford system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate system for communication of healthcare data taught by Hasan in the Ford system for optimizing secure data exchange. In addition, both of the references (Ford and Hasan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as file upload and database operations. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Ford and Hasan further discloses wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising bypassing the transaction processing system of the hybrid cloud cache and attempting to upload the file to a staging area of a cloud system that is part of the hybrid cloud cache prior to assessing upload status. (See paras. 141 and 145-146, wherein stage data are disclosed, also See paras. 456-460 and 518, wherein hybrid configurations are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
As per claims 23 and 31, Ford fails to disclose wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising if the upload status indicates that the file is already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then transferring the file from the staging area to a destination intended by the client.
On the other hand, Hasan teaches wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising if the upload status indicates that the file is already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then transferring the file from the staging area to a destination intended by the client. (See Fig.3, paras. 43 and 431-433, wherein existing data and transferring data are disclosed; as taught by Hasan.)
See claims 21 and 29 for motivation above.
As per claims 24 and 32, Ford fails to disclose wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising if the upload to the staging area has failed, then uploading the file to the destination intended by the client.
On the other hand, Hasan teaches wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to perform operations comprising if the upload to the staging area has failed, then uploading the file to the destination intended by the client. (See Fig. 3, paras. 24, 431-433, wherein staging database and transferring are disclosed, also See paras. 514-515, wherein portal service functions are disclosed; as taught by Hasan.)
See claims 21 and 29 for motivation above.
As per claims 25, 33, and 40, the combination of Ford and Hasan further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to generate a first identifier to identify the file associated with the upload transaction and a second identifier to identify a version of the file associated with the upload transaction. (See paras. 177, 187, 192, wherein versions of documents are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
As per claims 26 and 35, the combination of Ford and Hasan further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to discontinue tracking of the upload status of the file once the upload transaction is marked as having been completed in the hybrid cloud journal. (See paras. 192 and 199-200, wherein sharing and tracking methods are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
As per claims 27 and 36, the combination of Ford and Hasan further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to concurrently upload a plurality of files requested to be uploaded by the client. (See Fig. 46, paras. 68, 70, and 109, wherein upload operations are disclosed, also See paras. 141, 175, and 189, wherein uploading files are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 21 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Ford and Hasan further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor or processors to update metadata associated with the file to indicate its location after transferring the file to the destination intended by the client. (See Fig. 519, paras. 374, 475, and 519, wherein document and content metadata are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
As per claim 30, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Ford and Hasan further discloses bypassing the transaction processing system of the hybrid cloud cache and attempting to upload the file to a staging area of a cloud system that is part of the hybrid cloud cache. (See paras. 141 and 145-146, wherein stage data are disclosed, also See paras. 456-460 and 518, wherein hybrid configurations are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
As per claim 34, the rejection of claim 29 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Ford and Hasan further discloses determining the upload status of the file based on one or more of the first identifier, the second identifier, metadata associated with the first identifier, or metadata associated with the second identifier. (See paras. 116 and 152, wherein status data are disclosed, also See paras. 146 and 151, wherein upload transactions are disclosed, also See paras. 177, 187, 192, wherein versions of documents are disclosed, also See Fig. 519, paras. 374, 475, and 519, wherein document and content metadata are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
As per claim 37, the rejection of claim 36 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Ford and Hasan further discloses maintaining an upload status for each of the plurality of files. (See paras. 116 and 152, wherein status data are disclosed, also See paras. 70, 86, and 109 wherein upload operations are disclosed, also See paras. 146 and 151, wherein upload transactions are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
As per claim 39, the rejection of claim 38 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Ford and Hasan further discloses bypassing the transaction processing system of the hybrid cloud cache and attempting to upload the file to a staging area of a cloud system that is part of the hybrid cloud cache; (See paras. 141 and 145-146, wherein stage data are disclosed, also See paras. 456-460 and 518, wherein hybrid configurations are disclosed; as taught by Ford.)
However, Ford fails to disclose wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then transferring the file from the staging area to a destination intended by the client; and wherein if the upload to the staging area has failed, then uploading the file to the destination intended by the client.
On the other hand, Hasan teaches wherein if the upload status indicates that the file is already uploaded to the staging area of the cloud system, then transferring the file from the staging area to a destination intended by the client; (See Fig.3, paras. 43 and 431-433, wherein existing data and transferring data are disclosed; as taught by Hasan.)
and wherein if the upload to the staging area has failed, then uploading the file to the destination intended by the client. (See Fig. 3, paras. 24, 431-433, wherein staging database and transferring are disclosed, also See paras. 514-515, wherein portal service functions are disclosed; as taught by Hasan.)
See claim 38 for motivation above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights