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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, filed 3/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 7-17, 19, and 20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of in view of Antonoff (US 2006/0069733).
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, 2, 4, 7-15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conley (US 2021/00881365 as listed on the IDS dated 4/21/2025) in view of Antonoff (US 2006/0069733).
In regards to claims 1 and 14, Conley teaches
one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or more processors with instructions. (¶216 and fig. 7, memory 706 can store instructions to be executed by processor 704)
determining that a capture event associated with an update to the data record meets a requirement; (fig. 4, ¶148-150 detects a triggering event (i.e. a capture event that meats a requirement) for updating a shared data record (i.e. associated with an update to a data record)
creating a sharing version of the data record; (fig. 4. ¶151-157 steps 404, 406, and 408 the updates to the shared data record are applied (i.e. a sharing version is created) and/or an update for the data record is created (i.e. a sharing version that is used to update remote clients files)
providing the sharing version of the data record from the source instance to the target instance. (fig. 4 step 410 and ¶158-159 the updated data record or the update for the data record (i.e. the sharing version) is sent to at least one client (i.e. target instance)
Conley may not specifically word-for-word teach
identifying a directional correlation entry in a correlation index for a data record shared between a source instance and a target instance;
However, Conley teaches in fig. 3 and ¶112 that the view state machine 308 is configured to determine (i.e. identify) and maintain which portions and/or entire records of the data records that specific clients are authorized to view, access, and/or edit. ¶52 and fig. 2 shows that the data repository 118 which is part of a data record management server 230 stores shared data records (and their updates). As such, the source instance is the data record management server and a target instance(s) are the clients (see client A 202, B 226 of fig. 2). The view state machine 308 can be seen a “correlation index”, which has entries for each record (i.e. directional correlation entry) that identify a client(s) (source instance(s)) associated with the records stored at the data record management server (target instance) which indicate the clients access rights i.e. view (a one-way direction) and/or edit (bi-directional) the shared record.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to have been able to modify the system of Conley to be able to identifying a directional correlation entry in a correlation index for a data record shared between a source instance and a target instances. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that simply combining the information already available to the system into “entries” of an “index” would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conley may not make obvious
removing personal identifiable information from the data record, supplementing the data record with additional information, or both
While Conley does state that rules can be applied to a shared data record (see abstract), it doesn’t specifically state removing personal identifiable information. However, Antonoff, in ¶61-77 and fig. 7-13 shows that a shared document can be scrubbed of personal identifiable information and/or other supplemental information can be added (or modified) to a file (i.e. tracked changes, comments, revisions, etc…) before a file is shared.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Antonoff to improve the system of Conley, such that shared files could be scrubbed and/or supplemented with additional data prior to the files being shared. This modification could be implemented with a high degree of success and the motivation for making such modification is that this can prevent sensitive information (i.e. personal information) from being inadvertently shared, therefore increasing the security of the system and of the company/people using such system.
In regards to claims 2, 10, and 15 Conley further teaches/makes obvious
wherein the source instance is hosted by a first server, the target instance is hosted by a second server, and the first server and the second server are connected by a network. (fig. 2 data record management server 230 (i.e. source instance of a first server), and client A 202 (i.e. target instance hosted by a second server). ¶38 teaches that they make be connected via network. ¶49 teaches the client may be a server.
In regards to claims 4, 11, and 17, Conley further teaches/makes obvious
wherein the sharing version includes a subset of data fields associated with the data record. (fig. 5, steps 512 and 514, ¶173-174 teaches the differences can be determines and an update data record (i.e. sharing version) can be created with just the differences (i.e. a subset of data fields associated with the data) and that new data record can be sent to the clients and used to update their local data record)
In regards to claims 7, 12, and 19 Conley further teaches/makes obvious
wherein the sharing version of the data record includes a new field not originally included in the data record. (¶55 the shared data record can include any type of modification, addition, and/or adjustments to the shared data record, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e. new fields can be added to the record))
In regards to claims 8, 13, and 20 Conley further teaches/makes obvious
wherein the directional correlation entry is associated with a correlation identifier and access credentials associated with the target instance. (¶112 that the view state machine 308 is configured to determine (i.e. identify) and maintain which portions and/or entire records of the data records that specific clients are authorized to view, access, and/or edit. (i.e. access credentials of the target instance)
In regards to claim 9, Conley teaches
receiving a shared version of a data record, (¶173-174, fig. 5 step 514, the updated shared data record is sent to clients (i.e. received by the clients)
processing the shared version of the data record to determine a target instance version of the data record; and storing the target instance version of the data record. (¶173-174, fig. 5 the updated shared data record is used to update their data record (i.e. create the target instance version), and the updated data record is then stored locally)
Conley may not specifically teach word-for-word that the data record is
associated with a directional correlation entry in a correlation index for the data record shared between a source instance and a target instance;
However, Conley teaches in fig. 3 and ¶112 that the view state machine 308 is configured to determine (i.e. identify) and maintain which portions and/or entire records of the data records that specific clients are authorized to view, access, and/or edit. ¶52 and fig. 2 shows that the data repository 118 which is part of a data record management server 230 stores shared data records (and their updates). As such, the source instance is the data record management server and a target instance(s) are the clients (see client A 202, B 226 of fig. 2). The view state machine 308 can be seen a “correlation index”, which has entries for each record (i.e. directional correlation entry) that identify a client(s) (source instance(s)) associated with the records stored at the data record management server (target instance) which indicate the clients access rights i.e. view (a one-way direction) and/or edit (bi-directional) the shared record.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to have been able to modify the system of Conley to be able to identifying a directional correlation entry in a correlation index for a data record shared between a source instance and a target instances. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that simply combining the information already available to the system into “entries” of an “index” would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 21, Conley further makes obvious
wherein the directional correlation entry comprises a correlation configuration indicating the data record from the source instance is provided to the target instance for storage. (¶44 teaches that client cache 116 stores an indication of a current version of each of the shared data records being accessed (i.e. stored) by each of the plurality of clients)
In regards to claim 22, Conley further makes obvious
determining an occurrence of an initial migration event; and migrating the data from the source instance to the target instance based on the source instance being configured as an authoritative source. (¶150-157, fig. 4 teaches an update is applied to the shared data record (i.e. an initial migration event of data to the source instance). The data is then migrated to the clients who have access rights to the shared data (i.e. the source instance is an authoritative source that tracks the access rights of the data).
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conley (US 2021/00881365 as listed on the IDS dated 4/21/2025) in view of Antonoff (US 2006/0069733) and Wu (US 2021/0149865).
In regards to claims 5, 6, and 18 Conley may not explicitly teach
receiving, at the source instance from a third instance, a migration request, in response to determining the target instance is unreachable.
modifying the directional correlation entry to reference the third instance in response to a determination that the migration request is approved.
Wu teaches through fig. 2A-2F that a data cluster (i.e. source) for a client can be migrated to another cluster (i.e. a third instance) such that the client will then access the new cluster after the migration is completed. Fig. 3 step 302 teaches the receiving of a migration request.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Wu such that the source can be migrated to another server/cluster and the client will be redirected to the new server/cluster (i.e. the direction correlation entries were updated) once the migration has completed. The motivation for such a modification is that this allows the system to migrate data sources with little interruption such that maintenance can be performed.
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, figures, and/or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicants in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 JASON W BLUST whose telephone number is (571)272-6302. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8:30 EST.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3978. 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.
/JASON W BLUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights