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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding 101 rejections.
101 Rejections:
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-24 were rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter. The present application is directed to methods and systems to synchronize files. A drawback with existing synchronizations is the inefficiency of copying an entire file or direction (0003). Another drawback is some synchronizations,…...... This reduces the amount of data transmitted to and from a host device and reduces processing time at the host device and a client device (0049)……Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 have each been amended to now include more specific aspects of the checksum process. This includes generating checksums for each of the portions and determining a value for each. The values can then be determined to see if there is a match in which case file synchronization is not necessary. For at least these reasons, each of the pending claims meets the requirements for patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in file synchronization because the application allegedly reduces the amount of data transmitted and reduces processing time. However, the claims, as amended, do not recite a specific technological improvement to file synchronization. Rather, the amended limitations merely recite additional details of generating checksums and values for portions of files and comparing those values.
For example, claim 1 recites generating templates, partitioning files into portions, generating a first checksum based on a first portion, generating a first value based on the first checksum, generating a second checksum based on a second portion, calculating checksum, comparing the first value with the second value, and updating a portion based on the comparison.
The limitations “generating a template…”, “partitioning, based on the template…”, “comparing….”, “updating the portions….”. are mental process by evaluation and judgment of data.
The limitations “generating a first checksum…”, “providing….”, “calculating...”, “generating a first value…”, “generating a second value…”, “providing the second value…”, “generating a second value…” are mathematical concept/calculations.
The additional elements are computer generated algorithm which is a field of use limitation and/or mere instructions and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea, namely mathematical concept/calculations and mental process, without significantly more. The amended limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
103 Rejection:
103 rejections have been withdrawn based on the amendments and arguments.
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, 2, 3, 7-12, 16-21, 23, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons:
Claim 1:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "method" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generating a template indicating algorithm according to criteria set by a user, the algorithm indicating a specified schema for partitioning a selected portion of a first file and a second file” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a template indicating an algorithm or rules/criteria to partition a file by evaluation and judgement.
-“partitioning, based on the template, the first file and the second file into a first portion and a second portion, respectively, wherein partitioning the first file and the second file comprises matching the specified schema defined in the template to content of the first file and the second file to generate the first portion of the first file and the second portion of the second file” recites a mental process because human mind can partition based on a template plurality of files into a first portion and a second portion by evaluation and judgement.
-“generating a first checksum based on the first portion, wherein generating the first checksum comprises: providing the first portion as input into a first checksum function; and” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“calculating the first checksum based on the first portion” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“generating a first value based on the first checksum” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“generating a second checksum based on the second portion, wherein generating the second checksum comprises: providing the second portion as input into a second checksum function; and” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“calculating the second checksum based on the second portion” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“generating a second value based on the second checksum” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“comparing the first value associated with the first portion with the second value associated with the second portion” recites a mental process because human mind can compare a first value associated with the first portion with a second value associated with the second portions by evaluation and judgment of data.
-“updating the first portion or the second portion based on the comparing” recites a mental process because human mind can update a portion of the file based on the comparing the data by evaluation and judgment of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a method of synchronizing files” and “indicating a computer generated algorithm” are “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“a method of synchronizing files” and “indicating a computer generated algorithm” are “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“partitioning the first file and the second file based on one of a first N bytes of the first file and the second file, a last N bytes of the first file and the second file, or a N byte range with an offset in the first file and the second file”, recites a mental process because human mind can partition first file and second file based on N bytes of the files by evaluation and judgment of data by looking at the bytes.
Claim 3:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“partitioning the first file and the second file based on bytes between a first two occurrences of a string in the first file and the second file, or bytes between first occurrences of two different strings in the first file and the second file” recites a mental process because human mind can partition files based on occurrences of a string by evaluation and judgment of data.
Claim 7:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“updating the first portion or the second portion responsive to the first value being different from the second value” recites a mental process because human mind can update a portion of the file based on the comparing the data by evaluation and judgment of data.
Claim 8:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein updating the first portion or the second portion based on the comparing comprises one of: replacing, in a memory, the first portion with the second portion in the second file or replacing, in the memory, the second portion with the first portion in the first file” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting the data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein updating the first portion or the second portion based on the comparing comprises one of: replacing, in a memory, the first portion with the second portion in the second file or replacing, in the memory, the second portion with the first portion in the first file” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“wherein updating the first portion and the second portion does not include updating a remainder of the first file or the second file” recites a mental process because human mind can update portions of the file and decide which portion does not require updates by evaluation/observation and judgment of data.
Claim 10:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "method" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generating a template indicatingalgorithm based on a criteria set by a user, the template indicated a manner in which to partition a first file and a second file” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a template based on the selection of portion by evaluation and judgement.
-“partitioning, based on the template, the first file and the second file into a first portion and a second portion, respectively, wherein partitioning the first file and the second file comprises matching the criteria defined in the template to content of the first file and the second file to generate the first portion of the first file and the second portion of the second file” recites a mental process because human mind can partition files based on a template by evaluation and judgement of the file.
-“generating a first checksum based on the first portion by providing the first portion as input into a first checksum function and calculating the first checksum based on the first portion” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“generating a second checksum based on the second portion by providing the second portion as input into a second checksum function and calculating the second checksum based on the second portion” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“generating a first value based on the first checksum and a second value based on the second checksum” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“comparing the first value of the first checksum of the first portion and the second value of the second checksum of the second portion; and” recites a mental process because human mind can compare a first checksum of the first portion and a second checksum of the second portion by evaluation and judgement of data.
-“updating the first portion or the second portion based on the comparing” recites a mental process because human mind can update portions of the files by evaluation and judgement of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a method of synchronizing files”, “indicating a computer generated algorithm” are “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“a method of synchronizing files” and “indicating a computer generated algorithm” are “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“partitioning the first file based on at least one of: a first N bytes of the first file; a last N bytes of the first file; or a N byte range with an offset” recites a mental process because human mind can select first N bytes or last bytes or N byte by evaluation and judgment.
Claim 12:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“partitioning the first file based on a first two occurrences of a string in the first file, or bytes between first occurrences of two different strings in the first file” recites a mental process because human mind can select bytes between occurrences by evaluation and judgment.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 9.
Claim 19:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "a non-transitory computer readable medium" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate a template, comprising algorithm according to criteria set by a user, the algorithm indicating a specified schema for partitioning a first portion of a first file and a second portion of a second file” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a template indicating a mental algorithm or rules/criteria to partition a file by evaluation and judgement.
-“provide the first portion as input into a first checksum function and calculate a first checksum based on the first portion” recites a concept and mathematical calculation.
-“generate a first value based on the first checksum” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“provide the second portion as input into a second checksum function and calculate a second checksum based on the second portion” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“generate a second value based on the second checksum” recites a concept calculation and mathematical calculation.
-“compare the first value with the second value” recites a mental process because human mind can compare first value with second value by evaluation and judgment of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program product to synchronize files, the computer program product comprising software instructions that, when run, cause the computer program product to:” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“computer generated algorithm” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“and responsive to the first value being different than the second value, replace the first portions with the second portions in the second file, or replace the second portions with the first portions in the first file” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting the data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“computer generated algorithm” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“and responsive to the first value being different than the second value, replace the first portions with the second portions in the second file, or replace the second portions with the first portions in the first file” s WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the computer program product replaces respective file portions of the first file or the second file without updating a remainder of the first file or the second file” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting the data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the computer program product replaces respective file portions of the first file or the second file without updating a remainder of the first file or the second file” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 21:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the first file is stored on a first device and the second file is stored on a second device” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting the data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the first file is stored on a first device and the second file is stored on a second device” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 21.
Claim 25:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“excluding from the first portion contents of the first file that are not included in the specified schema” recites a mental process because human mind can exclude portions of the file based on the schema by evaluation and judgement of data.
Claim 26:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“excluding from the second portion contents of the second file that are not included in the specified schema” recites a mental process because human mind can exclude portions of the file based on the schema by evaluation and judgement of data.
Claim 27:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the first checksum and the second checksum are a MDS checksum” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the first checksum and the second checksum are a MDS checksum” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 28:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the computer program product partitions the first file and the second file based on one of a first N bytes of the first file and the second file, a last N bytes of the first file and the second file, or a N byte range with an offset in the first file and the second file” “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the computer program product partitions the first file and the second file based on one of a first N bytes of the first file and the second file, a last N bytes of the first file and the second file, or a N byte range with an offset in the first file and the second file” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Prior art considerations
Prior art is not cited for claims 1, 2, 3, 7-12, 16-21, 23, 25-28.
Prior arts of record Jayaram et al. (US 2021/0271681) teaches calculating checksums [0266, 0267]. Busch (2022/0232057) teaches calculating hash values ([0030, 0039]). Sharpe et al. (2014/0007239) teaches calculating checksums in paragraphs [0147]. Prior arts of records do not explicitly teach “generating a first checksum based on the first portion, wherein generating the first checksum comprises: providing the first portion as input into a first checksum function; and calculating the first checksum based on the first portion; generating a first value based on the first checksum; generating a second checksum based on the second portion, wherein generating the second checksum comprises: providing the second portion as input into a second checksum function; and calculating the second checksum based on the second portion; generating a second value based on the second checksum, comparing the first value associated with the first portion with the second value associated with the second portion; and updating the first portion or the second portion based on the comparing” as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
/FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights