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 .
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(s) 1-4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekar et al., US 9141483 B1 (hereafter referred to as Sekar) in view of Shibata, US 20200117401 A1 (hereafter referred to as Shibata).
Claim 1, Sekar teaches an information processing system (column 2, lines 49-51; “Types of client devices include personal computers, mobile phones, PDAs, and other networked devices.”) comprising:
a processor configured (inherent to network device) to:
perform standard synchronization that synchronizes information between the information processing system and a synchronization destination by communicating with the synchronization destination at predetermined time intervals (column 3, lines 26-30; “The master synchronization server synchronizes data with client devices connected to it (i.e., client devices that have established a synchronization session with the master synchronization server via the Internet) (step 240).” The synchronization destination is “the master synchronization server”. And column 5, lines 16-18; “In the preferred embodiment, metadata is synchronized in real-time, even if files may are synchronized on a deferred schedule.”); and
if the information processing system becomes unable to communicate with the synchronization destination in a communication disabled state (column 2, lines 55-60; “Client devices establish synchronization sessions with either a proxy synchronization server … depending on which server provides the "best" available connection to that client device (step 210).”), transmit, to one of the other information processing systems performing the standard synchronization, an execution instruction (in combination with Shibata) that causes the one information processing system to perform proxy synchronization (column 3, lines 55-60; establishing “session”) to operate as a proxy for synchronization of the information between the information processing system and the synchronization destination (column 3, lines 30-32; “Each proxy synchronization server synchronizes data with the master synchronization server (step 250).”). Sekar teaches establishing a session to perform proxy synchronization. Sekar does not specifically teach establishing a session is executing an instruction. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shibata teaches an execution instruction to operate as a proxy for synchronization (p. 42, “The client application 400 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as a client for the synchronization server 120. The server application 410 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as the synchronization server 120.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sekar by incorporating an execution instruction from Shibata to improve capability by enabling synchronized for different platforms by executing an application.
Claim 10 recites an information synchronization system comprising features that are similar to the features of the information claim 1 above. Claim 10 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for processing information, steps similar to the operations of the information processing system of claim 1 above. Claim 11 is rejected on as similar rationale.
Claim 2, Sekar-Shibata teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire, from the other information processing systems, selection information serving as selection criteria (Sekar, column 2, lines 55-60; “Best” available connection) according to which an execution system caused to perform the proxy synchronization is selected from among the other information processing systems (column 2, lines 55-60; “Client devices establish synchronization sessions with either a proxy synchronization server or a master synchronization server, depending on which server provides the "best" available connection to that client device (step 210).”);
select the execution system from the other information processing systems in accordance with the selection information (Sekar, column 2, lines 55-60; “depending on which server provides the "best" available connection to that client device (step 210).”); and
transmit the execution instruction (Sekar, column 3, lines 55-60; establishing “session”) (Shibata, p. 42, “The client application 400 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as a client for the synchronization server 120. The server application 410 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as the synchronization server 120.”) to the selected execution system (Sekar, column 3, lines 44-47; “files are synchronized in real-time between the proxy synchronization servers and interest client devices connected to it (i.e., client devices that have established a synchronization session with the proxy synchronization server).”).
Claim 3, Sekar-Shibata teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the selection information is execution information indicating whether the one information processing system performs the proxy synchronization for another different information processing system different from the information processing system (Sekar, column 3, lines 1-10; “Client devices establish synchronization sessions with either a proxy synchronization server or a master synchronization server, depending on which server provides the "best" available connection to that client device (step 210). "Best" means fastest, cheapest, or more secure, as per the client device's requirements.”), wherein the processor is configured to: in accordance with the execution information, select as the execution system the one information processing system that performs the proxy synchronization for the different information processing system (Sekar, column 3, lines 3-10; “Client device 10 could connect over the Internet to the master synchronization server, with a connection speed of several megabits per second, or it could connect to the proxy synchronization server 30 over the local area network 15 with a connection speed to up to, a gigabit per second. Client device 10 would likely choose to connect to the proxy synchronization server 30.); and
transmit the execution instruction to the selected execution system (Sekar, column 3, lines 55-60; establishing “session”) (Shibata, p. 42, “The client application 400 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as a client for the synchronization server 120. The server application 410 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as the synchronization server 120.”).
Claim 4, Sekar teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the selection information is communication information indicating whether the one information processing system is communicable with the synchronization destination (Sekar, column 2, lines 35-38; “The present invention provides a system and method for multi-tiered data synchronization. Data is synchronized between a "master" synchronization server, one or more "proxy" synchronization servers, and client devices. “), and
wherein the processor is configured to: in accordance with the communication information, select as the execution system the one information processing system communicable with the synchronization destination (Sekar, column 2, lines 55-60; “step 210”, “’Best’ means fastest, cheapest, or more secure, as per the client device's requirements.”); and transmit the execution instruction (Shibata, p. 42, “The client application 400 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as a client for the synchronization server 120. The server application 410 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as the synchronization server 120.”) to the selected execution system (column 3, lines 44-47; “files are synchronized in real-time between the proxy synchronization servers and interest client devices connected to it (i.e., client devices that have established a synchronization session with the proxy synchronization server).”).
Claim 6, Sekar teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, if information indicating a communication disabled state in which the one information processing system having performed the proxy synchronization becomes unable to communicate with the synchronization destination is acquired (Sekar, column 3, lines 10-19; “If client 10 is a mobile device that is taken to another location, it may no longer be able to connect to the proxy synchronization server 30 (for example, because the proxy synchronization server 30 is behind a firewall and is not accessible outside the user's home network). In this case, client device 10 would connect directly to the master server 60 via the Internet. In FIG. 1, client devices 40 and 50 are outside the local area network 15, and, thus, would establish synchronization sessions directly with the master synchronization server 60.”), transmit the execution instruction (Shibata, p. 42, “The client application 400 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as a client for the synchronization server 120. The server application 410 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as the synchronization server 120.”) to the different information processing system different from the one information processing system (.
Claim 7, Sekar teaches the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire, from a plurality of the different information processing systems, selection information serving as selection criteria according to which an information processing system serving as an execution system caused to perform the proxy synchronization is selected from among the different information processing systems (column 2, lines 55-60; “Client devices establish synchronization sessions with either a proxy synchronization server or a master synchronization server, depending on which server provides the "best" available connection to that client device (step 210). "Best" means fastest, cheapest, or more secure, as per the client device's requirements” And column 3, lines 3-8; “megabit” or “gigabit”);
select an information processing system as the execution system from the different information processing systems in accordance with the selection information; and transmit the execution instruction to the selected execution system (Sekar, column 3, lines 55-60; establishing “session”) (Shibata, p. 42, “The client application 400 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as a client for the synchronization server 120. The server application 410 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as the synchronization server 120.”).
Claim 8, Sekar-Shibata teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, if the information processing system shifts from the communication disabled state to a communication enabled state in which the information processing system is communicable with the synchronization destination (column 3, lines 3-10; “Consider for example, client device 10 in FIG. 1. Client device 10 could connect over the Internet to the master synchronization server, with a connection speed of several megabits per second, or it could connect to the proxy synchronization server 30 over the local area network 15 with a connection speed to up to, a gigabit per second. Client device 10 would likely choose to connect to the proxy synchronization server 30.”), transmits to the one information processing system an instruction (column 3, lines 55-60; ending a “session”) (Shibata, p. 42, “The client application 400 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as a client for the synchronization server 120. The server application 410 is an application used for the MFP 110 to function as the synchronization server 120.”) to end execution of the proxy synchronization (Sekar, column 3, lines 10-19; “If client 10 is a mobile device that is taken to another location, it may no longer be able to connect to the proxy synchronization server 30 (for example, because the proxy synchronization server 30 is behind a firewall and is not accessible outside the user's home network). In this case, client device 10 would connect directly to the master server 60 via the Internet. In FIG. 1, client devices 40 and 50 are outside the local area network 15, and, thus, would establish synchronization sessions directly with the master synchronization server 60.”).
Claim 9, Sekar-Shibata teaches the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to, if the one information processing system has ended the execution of the proxy synchronization, resume the standard synchronization (Sekar, column 3, lines 10-19; “If client 10 is a mobile device that is taken to another location, it may no longer be able to connect to the proxy synchronization server 30 (for example, because the proxy synchronization server 30 is behind a firewall and is not accessible outside the user's home network). In this case, client device 10 would connect directly to the master server 60 via the Internet. In FIG. 1, client devices 40 and 50 are outside the local area network 15, and, thus, would establish synchronization sessions directly with the master synchronization server 60.”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekar-Shibata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Claim 5, Sekar-Shibata teaches the information processing system according to claim 4, as cited above. Sekar does not specifically teach wherein the selection information includes the communication information indicating whether the one information processing system is communicable with the synchronization destination and includes load information indicating a synchronization load when the one information processing system is synchronized with information on the synchronization destination, and
wherein the processor is configured to:
in accordance with the communication information and the load information, select as the execution system the one information processing system that is communicable with the synchronization destination and has a minimum synchronization load; and transmit the execution instruction to the selected execution system. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nguyen teaches wherein the selection information includes the communication information indicating whether the one information processing system is communicable with the synchronization destination and includes load information indicating a synchronization load when the one information processing system is synchronized with information on the synchronization destination (p. 26, “Synchronization can be coordinated between the MFP and the service cloud based on multiple factors such as what task has been performed, the type of synchronization data, the amount of synchronization data, and the performance level of the service cloud. For example, if the service cloud is under a heavy load, synchronization can be delayed until a period of time when the service cloud is under a lighter load. Similarly, if the task is performed on the MFP to reduce possible network congestion, then synchronization can be performed at a time when network traffic is lower or in a manner designed to minimize the impact to the service cloud.”), and
wherein the processor is configured to:
in accordance with the communication information and the load information, select as the execution system the one information processing system that is communicable with the synchronization destination and has a minimum synchronization load; and transmit the execution instruction to the selected execution system (p. 15, “the application 112 can be configured to execute a specific management task 114, for example the task 114 of generating email when errors occur, or the application 112 can be configured to receive one or more different tasks from the service cloud 110. For example, in various embodiments the service cloud 110 offloads one or more computationally demanding tasks 114 to the MFP 104 which reduces demand on the service cloud 110. In other embodiments the service cloud 110 can selectively distribute tasks 114 to an MFP 104 during peak performance times in order to shed load as needed. In yet other embodiments, the task 114 that is offloaded can help to reduce network congestion on the service cloud 110.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sekar-Shibata by incorporating including server load and congestion and thereby expanding the criteria considered for offloading synchronization tasks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hori, US 20150077776 A1, teaches The multifunction peripheral 20 and the work flow server 30 synchronize positions of the tasks within the work flow in the tracking. Then, at step S222, the multifunction peripheral 20 transmits the data to be processed as the result of the performance of task 4 to the work flow server 30.
Sato, US 10264068 B2, teaches Although in the present embodiment, a description will be given of a case where the present invention is applied to a server as an information processing apparatus that is capable of synchronizing various kinds of data with an MFP as an image forming apparatus, the present invention is not limitedly applied to the server. For example, the present invention can be applied to any of another MFP, a client PC, and a smartphone, as an image processing apparatus, which is capable of synchronizing various types of data with the MFP.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights