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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 8-9 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cong et al. (US 20180189334) in view of Dash (US 20240061820) and in further view of Labana et al. (US 20150309783).
Regarding claim 1, Cong teaches an information processing system comprising: a processor configured to:
maintain, for each file ([0020] “Content items can be any digital data such as … files”), file history information indicating a history of an operation on the file ([0030] “store a log of data regarding changes, access, etc. in server … can include the unique ID of the content item and a description of the change or access action along with a time stamp or version number”; “tracks changes to content items, different versions of content items (including diverging version trees), and a change history”; “change history can include a set of changes that, when applied to the original content item version, produces the changed content item version”) and a location of the file ([0020] “data regarding where a content item is stored in content storage can be stored in content directory … data regarding changes, access, etc. can be stored”, [0021] “selecting a storage location for the content item”; [0023] “Content directory can store the content path for each content item as part of a content entry”) at each specific time point ([0012] “content items reflecting the version of the content items at the point in time”; [0030] “a time stamp or version number”, [0072]);
maintain, for each folder ([0020] “content item can also include collections … for grouping content items together … such as folders”), folder history information indicating a history of an operation on the folder ([0030] “tracks changes to content items, different versions of content items (including diverging version trees), and a change history”, “change history … produces the changed content item version”, wherein content items can be folders) and a location of the folder ([0022]) at each specific time point ([0030], [0072]);
maintain management information indicating a hierarchical structure ([0023] “Content management service can use the content path to present the content items in the appropriate folder hierarchy, such as a tree-like directory structure”) at each specific time point, wherein the management information is created based on a location of each file ([0023] “Content directory can store the content path for each content item as part of a content entry”) at the specific time point and a location of each folder at the specific time point ([0030] “Content management … using a content item version control service that tracks changes to content items, different versions of content items (including diverging version trees), and a change history”, wherein the version is specific time point [0072]-[0073]);
receive designation of a specific time point in a past from a user ([0012] “the user can enter a date (e.g., timestamp) the user believes to be associated with a desired version of the modified content items”, [0072], [0077] “client application can receive a request for a previous version of a directory structure”; “user … can enter and submit a date (e.g., Nov. 5, 2015)”);
display a first hierarchical structure that is a hierarchical structure of folders at the specific time point on a display ([0079] “can receive indications that folder 320 (e.g., Roo), folder 322 (e.g., Milo), image 328 (e.g., imogenjpg), and video 332 (e.g., Matrix.mp4) were content items stored in the top level directory”; “indications can be lower than the top level directory (e.g., specific sub-directories indicated by the request)”; [0080] “generate at least a portion of the previous version of the directory structure”, F3A-3B see “CMS-11-5-15’),
wherein the first hierarchical structure is the hierarchical structure indicated by the management information ([0023] “Content management service can use the content path to present the content items in the appropriate folder hierarchy, such as a tree-like directory structure”) corresponding to the designated specific time point ([0077]-[0078], [0086]);
receive designation of a file or a folder in the first hierarchical structure from the user ([0080] “user wishes to accesses a file”; [0084] “receive a request to access a content item of a previous version of a directory structure (e.g., previous version of the directory structure of placeholder content items as shown in FIG. 3A and 3B). …user can request to access a placeholder content item of a previous version of the directory structure”); and
move a location of the received file or folder in a second hierarchical structure that is to a current hierarchical structure on the display ([0086] “a user can select a file or directory (e.g., placeholder content item”, F2, wherein the displayed folder 208 “can be current in time” [0072]) in the previous version of the directory structure … The menu can include an option to restore the directory or file to the user account … the restore can overwrite the current -in-time version of the file or directory. … the restore can write a new file or directory with a new name … the user can drag and drop the folder or file from the previous version of the directory structure to the current-in-time version of the directory structure”),
wherein the location of the received file or the folder is specified by the processor with reference (see NOTE) to the file history information or the folder history information ([0012] “content items stored with a content management system at a previous point in time, while retaining access to the current-in-time version of the content items”, [0079] “client … can receive indications that folder … content items stored in the top level directory of user account”; “the indications can be information associated with the content … path, extension, metadata, unique identifier, etc.,” [0080]). The indication with a path of the content item is construed to be analogous to the claimed “reference.”
Although Cong teaches that the user can be “viewing, copying, saving, etc.) content items stored with a content management system at a previous point in time, while retaining access to the current-in-time version of the content items” [0012], Cong does not explicitly teach, however Dash discloses –
display ([0076] “(an API client) may receive one or more snapshots of these collections from the storage system 705 in response to an API request”) a location of the received file or folder in a second hierarchical structure that is a current hierarchical structure on the display ([0043] “obtain the snapshots … associated with a collection of files and directories; “list snapshots, or list changes between two snapshots”, [0044] “identify files and directories that have changed in a given time interval (e.g., between two snapshots” [0046], [0048]-[0052], wherein snapshots are periodically created and can represent “current snapshot” [0052], [0055], [0055], [0072], [0078], [0080]-[0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cong to include a location of the received file or folder in a second hierarchical structure as disclosed by Dash. Doing so would provide a more efficient and scalable approach for updating the path identifiers of directories and files that were renamed or deleted in a given time period (Dash [0013]).
NOTE – with respect to the limitation – “location … is specified … with reference to the history information,” it is not clear of exact requirements for the claimed “reference.” By the broadest, reasonable interpretation – reference in computer technology refers to links, pointer, address etc.. Cong teaches providing indication with the hierarchal structure – “indications can be information associated with the content items … filename, path … unique identifier” [0079].
Cong further teaches “restore the directory or file … can overwrite the current-in-time version of the file or directory. In other examples, the restore can write a new file or directory with a new name” [0086]. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that restoring directory from a previous version (historic information) in the current-in-time version of the directory and providing indication information of the path is obviously and reasonably construed to be analogous to the limitation – “wherein the location of the received file or the folder is specified by the processor with reference to the file history information or the folder history information.”
On the other hand, to fully opiate such reasoning, Labana discloses – “wherein the location of the received file or the folder is specified by the processor with reference to the file history information or the folder history information” ([0030] “mounting may include providing … access path, such as an Internet Protocol address, directory path name, and other path information, to access the contents of the one or more volumes. Once mounted, overlaying the updated version … comprise making the updated components of the application accessible through the same location or directory in the file system as the locally installed application components”, [0033],[0026] “Once mounted … overlaying the necessary files that take precedence over the older version”, [0052]-[0053] “components are overlaid in an application directory location “, Fig.7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cong to include a location specified with a reference to the history information as disclosed by Labana. Doing so would provide the updated version of the local version an recreate the file system view (Labana [0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Cong as modified teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
display (Dash [0019], [0038]) a difference between the first hierarchical structure and the second hierarchical structure on the display (Cong F3A:212, 340, [0012] a user can be “viewing, copying, saving, etc.) content items stored with a content management system at a previous point in time, while retaining access to the current-in-time version of the content items”; [0086] “can visually differentiate the content items from the placeholder content items”; “the restore can overwrite the current-in-time version of the file or directory”; “the user can drag and drop the folder or file from the previous version of the directory structure to the current-in-time version of the directory structure”, Dash [0043], [0046], [0050], wherein snapshots are periodically created and can represent “current snapshot” [0052], [0055], [0055], [0078], [0080]-[0081]).
NOTE in alternative art Pogde et al. (US 2020/0301882) likewise discloses claim 2 in [0044] and [0090] and further obviate the teachings of Cong and Dash.
Regarding claim 3, Cong as modified teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
restore the file that belongs to the second hierarchical structure and has been designated by the user to a folder in which the designated file was stored in the past (Cong [0086], Dash [0029] “snapshot may also be used to restore ( e.g., recover) the corresponding computing object as of the particular point in time corresponding to the snapshot”, [0034], [0038] “relocate data or create copies of data based on using one or more snapshots to restore the associated computing object within its original location or at a new location”).
Regarding claim 4, Cong as modified teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to:
restore the file that belongs to the second hierarchical structure and has been designated by the user to a folder in which the designated file was stored in the past (Cong [0086], Dash [0029] “snapshot may also be used to restore ( e.g., recover) the corresponding computing object as of the particular point in time corresponding to the snapshot”, [0034], [0038] “relocate data or create copies of data based on using one or more snapshots to restore the associated computing object within its original location or at a new location”).
Regarding claim 5, Cong as modified teaches the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive selection of a folder that is a restoration destination from the user (Cong [0086]) in a case in which the folder in which the designated file was stored in the past does not exist (Cong [0071], [0073], Dash [0063], [0073]).
NOTE an analogous prior art Berman et al. (US 20140074790) likewise disclose claim 5 in [0047] and further obviates the teaching of Cong as modified.
Regarding claim 6, Cong as modified teaches the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive selection of a folder that is a restoration destination from the user (Cong [0086]) in a case in which the folder in which the designated file was stored in the past does not exist (Cong [0071], [0073], Dash [0063], [0073]).
NOTE an analogous prior art Berman et al. (US 20140074790) likewise disclose claim 6 in [0047] and further obviates the teaching of Cong as modified.
Regarding claim 7, Cong as modified teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein, for each file, history information indicating a history of an operation on the file is associated with the file (Cong [0029]-[0030]), and the processor is configured to:
specify a location of the file in the second hierarchical structure on the basis of the history information (Cong [0071] “interface of content items stored at a content management system … at a current time (e.g., present time)”; “can list the content items stored locally … include the name of the content item … date content item was modified,”, [0072]-[0074], Dash [0039], [0049], [0078]-[0079]).
Claims 8-9 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to independent claim
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103, the applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues –
“Cong operates on a fundamentally different mechanism … Cong merely teaches retrieving and restoring a past version of a file. Cong fails to teach or suggest the claimed feature of specifying and displaying the current specific location of a historically selected file within the active file system. In Cong, the system does not know or track where a historical file currently resides in the active directory; it merely pulls a saved backup from the cloud. Displaying a downloaded, read-only copy of a file is technically and fundamentally distinct from the claimed invention, which relies on file history information to specify and display the current active path/address of the file without requiring any restoration or move operations.”
The arguments are not persuasive. Seems like the applicant is cherry picking some random paragraphs from Cong and map such statements to non-existing /non-required limitations. Regardless, Cong explicitly teaches storing metadata of files and fodders, which includes any changes made to the file or folders and “produces the changed content item version” ([0029]-[0030]), wherein changes are “new, deleted, modified, copied, or moved content items” [0036]. The change The changed content item version is applicable to any files or folders (collections or directories). The “change history” for files or folders can be displayed and compared as shown in Fig.2 – which is “current in time” for CMS folder [0072] (aka active directory) and November 5, 2015 is a historical version for CMS folder as shown in Fig.3A-B, which shows previous version of the folder content with deleted or modified files [0073]-[0074]. The “change history” provides current active path/address in the present (current) and historical location, as required by the claim.
The applicant further argues –
“Cong fails to teach or suggest the claimed feature of specifying and displaying the current specific location of a historically selected file within the active file system. In Cong, the system does not know or track where a historical file currently resides in the active directory.”
Yes, indeed the applicant is correct, Cong fails to teach “display a location of the received file or folder in … a current hierarchical structure”. However, Cong teaches that user can see two displayed locations – current (F2) and historic and move / drag the file from the historic location to the current directory. Thus, only the end result of the manual movement is not explicitly shown. However, the user can clearly see the differences between two directories (current and historic) and clearly see at least the files that were added. The only thing the user cant’s see – are the filed that were removed (indicated by the cross out line). However, the user can make such determination by a logical / visual deduction. Thus, although not identical disclosures, the reference of Cong essentially solves the same functionality of providing the user with differences in current vs historic folder / hierarchy versioning. Further, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981 ); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's remaining arguments, in regard to the presently amended claims, are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims 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 POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights