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 .
This Office Action is in response to application filed on July 23, 2024.
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 2012/0330887) in view of Augustine et al. (US 2011/0320407).
With respect to Claim 1, Young et al. disclose:
accessing, by one or more processors, a reference state object that corresponds to an account and is usable to update a local state object stored by each device among a plurality of devices that each correspond to the account; (see Figure 8; a server synchronizes (accessing) a copy of the master catalog (reference state object) with a device(s) (each device among a plurality of devices) when it is determined that a locally stored file needs to be updated (local state object), Paragraph 66; a system account combines a plurality of devices whereby file and data are shared between them (reference state object that corresponds to an account/plurality of devices that each correspond to the account), Paragraph 72)
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first message from a first device among the plurality of devices that each correspond to the account, the first message including an update of the local state object stored by the first device; (The file catalogs (update of the local state object) can be forwarded (first message) from respective device(s) (first device) to a master file catalog maintained at a central server, Paragraph 7)
updating, by the one or more processors and based on the update of the local state object, the reference state object that corresponds to the account; (see Figure 7; the server requests the file catalog (local state object) from the client application component, and the file catalog is synchronized with the server (updating reference state object), Paragraph 65)
and providing, by the one or more processors, an update message to a device among the plurality of devices that each correspond to the account, the update message including the updated reference state object that corresponds to the account. (see Figure 8; a server synchronizes (providing an update message) a copy of the master catalog (updated reference state object) with a device(s) (a device among the plurality of devices) when it is determined that a locally stored file needs to be updated (local state object), Paragraph 66)
Young et al. do not disclose:
providing, by the one or more processors, an update message to a subscribed device among the plurality of devices that each correspond to the account, the subscribed device being subscribed to updates of the reference state object that corresponds to the account
However, Augustine et al. disclose:
providing, by the one or more processors, an update message to a subscribed device among the plurality of devices that each correspond to the account, (notifying subscribers to the object of a state change (update message), Paragraph 34, lines 5-8; propagating the changes (transmitting an update message) to the shared collection and state information to subscribers, Paragraph 35, lines 1-15) the subscribed device being subscribed to updates of the reference state object that corresponds to the account (machines (subscribed device) contain programs that can subscribe for change notifications on the collection to receive communication of changes to the collection, Paragraph 5, lines 3-21)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Augustine et al. into the teaching of Young et al. to include providing, by the one or more processors, an update message to a subscribed device among the plurality of devices that each correspond to the account, the subscribed device being subscribed to updates of the reference state object that corresponds to the account in order to implement a data sharing mechanism that allows for sharing/updating of data collections between subscribers. (Augustine et al., Abstract, lines 1-9)
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Young et al. further disclose:
wherein:
the provided update message that includes the updated reference state object is usable by the device to update the local state object stored by the device that corresponds to the account among the plurality of devices that each correspond to the account. (see Figure 8; a server synchronizes (provided update message) a copy of the master catalog (updated reference state object) with a device(s) (a device among the plurality of devices) when it is determined that a locally stored file needs to be updated (update the local state object), Paragraph 66; a system account combines a plurality of devices whereby file and data are shared between them (plurality of devices that each correspond to the account), Paragraph 72)
Young et al. do not disclose:
a subscribed device
However, Augustine et al. disclose:
a subscribed device (machines (subscribed device) contain programs that can subscribe for change notifications on the collection to receive communication of changes to the collection, Paragraph 5, lines 3-21)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Augustine et al. into the teaching of Young et al. to include a subscribed device in order to implement a data sharing mechanism that allows for sharing/updating of data collections between subscribers. (Augustine et al., Abstract, lines 1-9)
With respect to Claim 3, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Young et al. further disclose:
wherein:
the device that corresponds to the account is configured to update, based on updated reference state object included in the provided update message, the local state object stored by the device. (see Figure 8; a server synchronizes (provided update message) a copy of the master catalog (updated reference state object) with a device(s) (a device among the plurality of devices) when it is determined that a locally stored file needs to be updated (update the local state object), Paragraph 66; a system account combines a plurality of devices whereby file and data are shared between them (device corresponds to the account), Paragraph 72)
Young et al. do not disclose:
a subscribed device
However, Augustine et al. disclose:
a subscribed device (machines (subscribed device) contain programs that can subscribe for change notifications on the collection to receive communication of changes to the collection, Paragraph 5, lines 3-21)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Augustine et al. into the teaching of Young et al. to include a subscribed device in order to implement a data sharing mechanism that allows for sharing/updating of data collections between subscribers. (Augustine et al., Abstract, lines 1-9)
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Young et al. further disclose:
wherein:
the first device that corresponds to the account is configured to execute an application that generates the update of the local state object stored by the first device. (At 2220, digital object on device 1420B (first device) is modified/edited/amended (update of the local state object). For example, the content of a word processing document (application) is edited (update of the local state object), a JPEG image is edited (update of the local state object) in a graphics editing program (application), a drawing file is saved with a different filename to that of the original drawing file, and the like., Paragraph 137; When a user (human or autonomous) creates or accesses a file or data stored locally on a device, either by creating a new document or file, reading an existing document or file, or editing an existing document or file, the client application component 310 (application) appends the locally cached catalog on the device (generate the update of the local state object stored by the first device)., Paragraph 60)
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Young et al. further disclose:
wherein:
the first device that corresponds to the account is configured to send, based on an application executing on the first device, the first message that includes the update of the local state object stored by the first device. (The client application component 310 (application) communicates (first message) any updates, viewings, creations, edits, etc. (update of the local state object), to server 110., Paragraph 60)
With respect to Claim 6, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Young et al. further disclose:
wherein:
the updating of the reference state object is based on a timestamp of the received first message from the first device that corresponds to the account among the plurality of devices that each correspond to the account. (see Figure 7; At 760, the server reviews the master catalog (e.g., master catalog 140, 430) stored thereon in comparison with the received file catalog, if necessary the master catalog is updated accordingly to indicate the timestamp of the file stored locally on the device being updated. (timestamp of the received first message from the first device), Paragraph 65; determining whether there have been any changes (e.g., an updated file edited timestamp) made to a master catalog (updating the reference state object is based on a timestamp of the received first message), Paragraph 66)
With respect to Claim 7, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Young et al. further disclose:
resolving an inconsistency among multiple first messages received from multiple first devices that each correspond to the account among the plurality of devices that each correspond to the account, (A situation (inconsistency) can arise where two or more devices (multiple first devices) have the same version of a digital object open and modifications are being made to the digital object on each respective device, Paragraph 166) the inconsistency being resolved based on timestamps of the multiple first messages. (to address situations of conflict a process of assigning priority (resolving the inconsistency) to the first received transaction (based on timestamps of the multiple first messages) can be utilized., Paragraph 166)
Claims 8-14 are system claims corresponding to the method claims above (Claims 1-7) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-7.
Claims 9-20 are non-transitory machine-readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims above (Claims 1-6) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeide et al. (US 2009/0282125) discloses synchronizing events between a mobile device and a server.
Garcia et al. (US 2016/0026348) discloses synchronizing, managing and sharing files across a plurality of client devices and a synchronization server.
Scheer et al. (US 9,781,203) discloses data synchronization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights