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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on filed on 12/8/2025.Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, and 17 are amended. Claims 2,3,10 and 11 are cancelled. Consequently, claims 1, 4-9, and 12-23 are pending.
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 1, 4-9, and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of data synchronization and version control which encompasses, comparing version identifications to determine data version, managing concurrent changes to shared data states and maintaining consistency across distributed systems. The concept is similar fundamental economic practices and methods of organizing human activity that have been performed mentally and with pen and paper. Data synchronization is analogous to basic accounting and record keeping practices where multiple parties maintain copies of ledgers and periodically reconcile differences.
Step 2A, the claims recite the following abstract concept: version control logic, such as determining whether a current version identification… is a latest version identification; generating a target version identification according to current version identification. This is merely comparing identifiers and generating new ones, which is fundamental data processing.
Data reconciliation such as changing the to-be-changed asset according to an asset change information list; merging and changing the current total asset according to the to-be-changed asset data. Th is basic data merging operations performed in accounting and record keeping.
Conflict resolution, judging whether the target version identification is consistent with the preset version identification, generating …status update prompt information to instruct the client to update. This is conventional conflict detection and resolution messaging.
Step 2B, the claims do not recite an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The claims recite only generic computer components and conventional functions, the client- server architecture, database operations, network messaging and data processing. The claims do not provide an improvement to computer functionality or solution to a technical problem. The claim elements represent well understood, routine and conventional activity.
The claims do not solve technical problems or provide technical improvement beyond applying conventional data synchronization concept to generic computing system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in response to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance the following:
1- The claims are implemented by a server and include interaction with a client.
Response: The argument is not persuasive, simply citing a server, client and data Exchange between them does not make the abstract idea patent eligible. Implementing an abstract idea using networked computers does not amount to significantly more. The
claimed components are generic computer functions when claimed at a high level of abstraction. Accordingly, the recited server-client interaction does not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application.
2- Reliance on Ex Parte Desjardins.
Response: In Desjardins, the claims were found eligible because they recited a specific technical architecture, and particular arrangement of components that improved the functioning of the computer system itself. In contrast, the present claims do not define a particular system architecture, do not recite a novel synchronization protocol and do not specify how the claimed steps are technically achieved. Instead, the claims recite functional results such as generating version identifiers, determining consistency, and sending prompts without specifying how the computer system is improved. Therefore. Desjardins is distinguishable and does not support eligibility.
3- The claims are analogous to Enfish.
Response: this argument is not persuasive. In Enfish the claims were eligible because they were directed to a specific data structure, and that the structure improved the wy a computer stores and retrieves data. The present claims do not recite a new data structure, a new memory organization or a specific database schema. Instead, the claims merely use version identifier, assist lists and processing identifiers which are conventional data elements used for tracking. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a self -referential table or other computer improvement as in Enfish.
4- The claims solve technical problems in conventional data synchronization.
The applicant argues that the claims solve technical problems, including slow speed caused by full asset uploads, risk of client tampering, timestamp-based version errors, and data consistency between client and server
Response: Even though these problems may arise in a computing environment, identifying a technical problem alone is insufficient to confer eligibility. The claims must recite a specific technical solution, not only a business or logic strategy implemented using generic computing components. In the claims, the alleged improvement s are achieved through rules and checks such as comparing identifiers, skipping processed changes, issuing instructions, rather than through technical mechanism that improves computer performance. The claims do not recite reduced network bandwidth usage, or improved processing efficient of the server or a unconventional cryptographic or security technique to prevent tampering.
5- The claims provide significantly more than abstract idea.
Response: At Alice Step 2, the additional elements are server, client, processor, memory, database, and computer readable medium are all generic computer components performing routine data functions. Taken individually and as an ordered combination, they do not improve the functioning of a computer, do not affect a transformation of matter and do not add an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not satisfy the “significantly more” requirement.
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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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 ttps://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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights