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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/08/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, “displaying list screen by the terminal”, line 7, is unclear. For examination purposes, it is believed meant to read as “displaying a list screen by the terminal”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the search" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a search” was not explicitly introduced as a noun, “the search” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and is believed meant to depend from claim 2. Claim 3 recites “wherein the search condition includes…”. However, claim 1 does not recite a “search condition”. The search condition is introduced in claim 2.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the index information includes a file name”. There is no prior recitation of “index information” in claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present invention are anticipated by the claims of the ‘574 patent. See the chart below for comparison.
18/791,694
U.S. Patent No. 12,088,574
1. A method, comprising:
acquiring first data identification information from a first service,
the first data identification information being information regarding first data stored in the first service;
acquiring second data identification information from a second service,
the second data identification information being information regarding second data stored in the second service; and
sending list information, to a terminal for displaying list screen by the terminal, the list information including the first data identification information, first identification information that identifies the first service,
the second data identification information, and second identification information that identifies the second service,
wherein the first identification information corresponds to the first data identification information, for displaying on the terminal that the first data is stored in the first service, and
the second identification information corresponds to the second data identification information, for displaying on the terminal that the second data is stored in the second service, the second identification information being different from the first identification information.
1. A method, comprising:
acquiring first index information from a first storage,
said first index information being information regarding first data stored in the first storage;
acquiring second index information from a second storage,
said second index information being information regarding second data stored in the second storage; and
sending, to a terminal for displaying by the terminal, the first index information, first identification information that identifies the first storage,
the second index information, and second identification information that identifies the second storage,
wherein the first identification information corresponds to the first index information, for displaying on the terminal that the first data is stored in the first storage, and
the second identification information corresponds to the second index information, for displaying on the terminal that the second data is stored in the second storage,
said second identification information being different from the first identification information.
2. (New) The method according to claim 1, comprising: accepting search conditions for searching data; searching for data stored in the first service and data stored in the second service based on the search condition; generating the list information including results of the search.
2. The method according to claim 1, comprising: accepting search conditions for searching data; searching for data stored in the first storage and data stored in the second storage based on the search condition; generating the list including results of the search.
3. (New) The method according to claim 1, wherein the search condition includes designation of one of the first service or the second service.
3. The method according to claim 1,
wherein the search condition includes designation of one of the first storage or the second storage.
4. (New) The method according to claim 2, comprising: accepting authentication information that identifies a user, the list information includes only data accessible by the user corresponding to the authentication information.
4. The method according to claim 2, comprising: accepting authentication information that identifies a user, the list includes only data accessible by the user corresponding to the authentication information.
5. (New) The method according to claim 1, wherein the first identification information is an icon that identifies the first service, and the second identification information is an icon that identifies the second service.
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first identification information is an icon that identifies the first storage, and the second identification information is an icon that identifies the second storage.
6. (New) The method according to claim 1, wherein the first service is configured to provide a first cloud service for storing first data, and the second service is configured to provide a second cloud service for storing second data.
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first storage is configured to provide a first cloud service for storing first data, and the second storage is configured to provide a second cloud service for storing second data.
7. (New) The method according to claim 1, wherein the first service and the second service are different servers.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first storage and the second storage are different servers.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim recites a "method" and therefore falls within a statutory category (a process).
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically, it recites the concepts of acquiring data identification information from two different sources and sending that information to be displayed on a list. Under USPTO guidance, this falls squarely within the abstract idea groupings of "Mental Processes" (collecting and organizing information) and "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing commercial or personal information).
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited are a "first service," a "second service," and a "terminal." These are invoked merely as generic components to perform the abstract idea (data gathering and data output). There is no specific improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite significantly more. The use of generic "services" (servers/databases) and a "terminal" to acquire and display data represents purely well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 2:
Recitation: Adds accepting search conditions and searching/generating a list based on those conditions.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recites the abstract idea of searching and retrieving information.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Adding a generic search function does not integrate the concept into a practical application. It does not improve how the search engine itself functions technically.
Step 2B: Querying a database and returning search results based on user conditions are highly conventional and well-understood computer functions.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 3
Recitation: Adds that the search condition includes designating the first or second service.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recites the abstract idea of organizing or targeting information retrieval.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Selecting a target for a search is a mere data input limitation and fails to provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Providing a specific search parameter (which database to search) is routine and conventional.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 4
Recitation: Adds accepting authentication information and limiting the list to accessible data.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recites the abstract idea of restricting access to information based on identity (a fundamental concept of organizing human activity).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Applying a security rule to the abstract idea of data display does not improve the computer's functionality. It merely applies the abstract idea within a specific business or security context.
Step 2B: User authentication and access control are textbook examples of well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 5
Recitation: Specifies that the identification information is an "icon."
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recites the abstract idea of displaying information.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Changing the format of the output from text to an "icon" is a mere presentation of information.
Step 2B: Displaying icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) is conventional.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 6
Recitation: Specifies that the services are "cloud services."
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recites the abstract idea of collecting information.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Specifying a "cloud service" merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B: Storing and retrieving data from cloud services is routine and conventional.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 7
Recitation: Specifies that the first and second services are "different servers."
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recites the abstract idea of collecting information from multiple sources.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Utilizing "different servers" is a generic physical implementation of the abstract idea of looking in two different places for information. It lacks technical integration.
Step 2B: Utilizing multiple servers in a network is well-understood and conventional.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 8
Recitation: Specifies that the index information includes a "file name."
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recites the abstract idea of organizing information.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Limiting the abstract idea to a specific type of data (a file name) does not integrate it into a practical application.
Step 2B: A file name is a basic, conventional data identifier.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 9
Recitation: Specifies that the list screen is a "single screen."
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recites the abstract idea of presenting information.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Similar to Claim 5, displaying aggregated data on a "single screen" is purely a layout/presentation limitation and fails Prong 2.
Step 2B: Aggregating data into a single GUI view is routine.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 10:
Recitation: Lists specific types of metadata (name, path, full text, update date, permissions, owner, group, size).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recites the abstract idea of collecting and displaying information.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Simply enumerating the specific data fields being collected and displayed is merely limiting the abstract idea to specific types of data. It does not provide a technical solution or integrate the idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Storing, retrieving, and displaying standard file system metadata is entirely routine and conventional in computing.
Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
As per claims 1-10, as currently drafted, allowability cannot be determined until the issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 are resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights