Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
3. Claims 9 and 19 are cancelled and claims 21-22 are newly added. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are currently pending in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 4 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 4, this claim recites the limitation of “wherein the backup namespace is not associated with a parent namespace” [emphasis added] in lines 1-2 while claim 1 recites the limitation of “a backup namespace restricted to unidirectional synchronization and associated with the user account without mounting the backup namespace under the root synchronization namespace” [emphasis added] in lines 8-10. First, it is unclear how the phrase of “the root synchronization namespace” from claim 4 is related to the limitation of “a parent namespace” from claim 1. Are they referring to the same thing? Clarification is required. Second, if they are referring to the same thing, it appears that the limitations of claim 4 do not further limit claim 1, since the limitations in claim 4 appear to be recited in the amended claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is rejected due to the similar reasons set forth with respect to claim 4.
Claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
Double Patenting
6. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 7 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of the instant application is a similar version of the claimed invention of the above identified U.S. Patent with the similar intended scope as shown below:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,111,845
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for providing a synchronization service and a backup service to a user account by a content management system, the method comprising:
maintaining a user account at the content management system, wherein the user account is associated with a root synchronization namespace monitored by a directional synchronization service, and wherein the user account is associated with a second synchronization namespace represented as a mount under the root synchronization namespace; and
maintaining a backup namespace restricted to unidirectional synchronization and associated with the user account without mounting the backup namespace under the root synchronization namespace.
Claim 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the backup namespace represents a specific backup location on a particular client device including objects to be backed up by the content management system.
Claim 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, comprising:
receiving a change to an object within the backup namespace, wherein a source of the change is from a source other than the specific backup location on the particular client device;
determining that the object is a backup object;
disallowing the change to the object within the backup namespace;
creating a new version of the object; and
storing the new version of the object within the root synchronization namespace for the user account.
Claim 1. A computer implemented method of providing object backup in a content management system with a bidirectional synchronization architecture, the method comprising:
configuring a bidirectional synchronization service on a client device, by one or more processors, to monitor a first directory on the client device, wherein the bidirectional synchronization service occurs in a first instance of the bidirectional synchronization service that is configured to watch the first directory, wherein the first directory includes objects for backup, and wherein the bidirectional synchronization service occurs in a second instance of the bidirectional synchronization service that is configured to watch a second directory, the second directory includes objects for bidirectional synchronization;
creating an anchor within the first directory, the anchor pointing to a backup location that is outside of the first directory, wherein the anchor is a special object that includes attributes that cause the bidirectional synchronization service to be restricted to uni-directional synchronization of the objects in the backup location;
detecting the anchor within the first directory being associated with one or more of the objects for backup in the first directory by the bidirectional synchronization service; and
based on the attributes, copying the objects from the backup location indicated by the anchor to the content management system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. Applicant’s arguments [Remarks filed on 04/08/2026] are not persuasive and the examiner maintains the rejection as set forth below:
9. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter 2019 PEG.
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method(s) of claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prog one of the 2019 PEG:
In claim 1-8 and 10-18, the limitations directed to no additional elements; in claims 20-22, the limitations directed to additional elements include: a memory and a processor.
In exemplary claims 1, 12 or 20, limitations reciting the abstract idea are as follows:
(1) maintaining a user account wherein the user account is associated with a root synchronization namespace monitored by a bidirectional synchronization service and a second synchronization namespace; and (2) maintaining a backup namespace restricted to unidirectional synchronization and associated with the user account.
These limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes because these limitations can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. The examiner believes that the steps disclosed in claims 1, 12 or 20 [maintain a user account; and maintain a backup namespace] can be performed by a human, using observation, evaluation, and judgment, because the steps involve making identifications and determinations, which are mental tasks humans routinely perform in the course of producing and performing queries.
A claim recites a mental process when the claim encompasses acts the person can perform using the mind or pen and paper [determining that a claim whose ‘steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ is directed to an unpatentable mental process]. This is true even if the claim recites, as they do here, that a generic computer component performs the acts.
As noted above, if a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. Here, the examiner is not persuaded that the aforementioned steps in claims 1, 12 or 20 cannot practically be performed in the human minds, or using pen and paper, but for the generic computing device.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prog two of the 2019 PEG:
With respect to Step 2A, prog two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a memory and a processor. However, these elements do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In other words, the claimed processes fail to improve the functioning of either the computing device or the user device. Rather, these additional elements merely link the underlying abstract idea (i.e., mental processes or using pen and paper) to a particular technological environment, i.e., search query processing. Thus, the claimed process uses conventional computers to automate tasks that would have otherwise been very labor intensive by a human searcher. Such claims are not patent eligible. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible”).
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to a memory and a processor, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. Such general-purpose computing device, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible.
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner. Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog.
The dependent claims have been fully considered, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0189311 (hereinafter Newhouse) in view of U.S. 20190205289 (hereinafter Kleinpeter), and further in view of U.S. 10,467,424 (hereinafter Mani).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Newhouse discloses a computer-implemented method for providing a synchronization service and a backup service to a user account by a content management system, the method comprising:
maintaining a user account at the content management system, wherein the user account is associated with a root synchronization namespace, and wherein the user account is associated with a second synchronization namespace represented as a mount under the root synchronization namespace ([0021, 0025 and 0063]; “…Content management service 116 can define or record a content path for a content item wherein the “root” node of a directory structure can be a namespace for each account…”; “…In some embodiments, multiple user account identifiers can be associated with a single content entry indicating that the content item has shared access by the multiple user accounts. In some embodiments, user account identifiers associated with a single content entry can specify different permissions for the associated content item…”; and “…Changes or updates to content in the content storage 142 made through the web interface, such as uploading a new version of a content item, can be propagated back to other client devices associated with the user's account. For example, multiple client devices, each with their own client software, can be associated with a single account and content items in the account can be synchronized between each of the multiple client devices…”); and
maintaining a [backup] namespace [i.e., additional namespaces that appear in the directory structure] associated with the user account without mounting [i.e., content management service 116 can use the content path to present the content items in the appropriate folder hierarchy, such as the root node of a user account’s directory structure] the [backup] namespace under the root synchronization namespace ([0021-0022, 0034 and 0039]; “Content item synchronization service 156 can synchronize all content associated with a particular user account on content management system 110. Alternatively, content item synchronization service 156 can selectively synchronize a portion of the content of the total content associated with the particular user account on content management system 110. Selectively synchronizing only a portion of the content can preserve space on client device 150 and save bandwidth.”).
The reference does not explicitly disclose the feature of utilizing a backup namespace associated with the user account. However, Kleinpeter discloses that “In some embodiments, a folder can be archived by moving the folder into an archive directory within or at least associated with organization directory 201. The archive directory is hidden from all user accounts having access to organization directory 201, and its existence and contents can only be viewed within administrator console 950” ([0467-0470]) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Kleinpeter in the system of Newhouse in view of the desire to enhance the content management system by utilizing the archive directory resulting in improving the content processing scheme.
Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter does not explicitly disclose the features of utilizing a bidirectional synchronization service and a unidirectional synchronization. However, Mani discloses that “Content-based security factors (CSF) may provide technical improvements to file synchronization systems. CSF may enable the content synchronized by the file synchronization system to be used as a primary or secondary authentication factor. CSF may utilize an expression generated based on the content synchronized by the filesystem. CSF may improve two-way file synchronization systems, such as cloud-based file systems. CSF may improve one-way file synchronization systems, such as file backups. CSF may improve the operation of file synchronization by providing additional security factors to strengthen security” (col. 3, lns. 27-37; col. 4, lns. 19-31) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Mani in the modified system of Newhouse in view of the desire to enhance the content management system by utilizing the specific synchronization scheme resulting in improving the shared content management process. In addition, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and a system for providing a synchronization service and a backup service to a user account by a content management system, comprising: a memory and at least one processor (Newhouse: [0108]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani disclose the computer-implemented method wherein the backup namespace is associated with an anchor object type (Newhouse: [0027]) and (Kleinpeter: [0468-0470]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 2 and 13 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 12, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 3, 14 and 21, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani disclose the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for a graphical user interface for displaying contents of the backup namespace; retrieving the backup namespace associated with the anchor object type; and presenting the graphical user interface identifying the backup namespace (Newhouse: [0027 and 0060]) and (Kleinpeter: [0468-0470]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 3 and 14 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 12, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani disclose the computer-implemented method wherein the backup namespace is not associated with a parent namespace (Newhouse: [0021]) and (Kleinpeter: [0139 and 0468]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 4 and 15 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 12, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani disclose the computer-implemented method wherein the backup namespace represents a specific backup location on a particular client device including objects to be backed up by the content management system (Newhouse: [0022]) and (Kleinpeter: [0139, 0445 and 0468]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 5 and 16 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 12, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani disclose the computer-implemented method wherein the specific backup location on the particular client device is indicated by an anchor object on the particular client device, the anchor object being maintained as the backup namespace associated with the user account, and being labeled as an anchor object type at the content management system (Newhouse: [0025 and 0063]; “…For example, multiple client devices, each with their own client software, can be associated with a single account and content items in the account can be synchronized between each of the multiple client devices”) and (Kleinpeter: [0130, 0292, 0469]; “…A user account namespace is a folder containing content items that are personal content items (in the context of the user account's membership in the organization) for the user account…”; and “…a folder can be archived by moving the folder into an archive directory within or at least associated with organization directory 201…”). Therefore, the limitations of claims 6 and 17 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 12, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani disclose the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a change to an object within the backup namespace, wherein a source of the change is from a source other than the specific backup location on the particular client device; determining that the object is a backup object; disallowing the change to the object within the backup namespace; creating a new version of the object; and storing the new version of the object within the root synchronization namespace for the user account (Newhouse: [0022-0023, 0063 and 0075]; uploading a new version of a content item; “…a source or destination of the content item based on whether the content item change is write or a delete…”) and (Kleinpeter: [0130, 0219, 0292]; “…each of the plurality of user account folders are also their own namespaces, which are the root level for each respective user account's folder, but are mounted within the organization directory (e.g., user account folder 215 for Member 1 is mounted with organization directory 201)…”). Therefore, the limitations of claims 7 and 18 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 12, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 8, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani disclose the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining that a user has requested to share an object within the backup namespace; and disallowing the sharing of the object with the backup namespace (Newhouse: [0022-0023]) and (Kleinpeter: [0377]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani disclose the computer-implemented method further comprising:
generating an anchor object for the backup namespace, wherein the anchor object is an object with special attributes; reading the special attributes of the anchor object; determining information of a backup directory using the special attributes of the anchor object; and creating an in-memory map for the backup namespace based on the special attributes to convert between a device unique identifier of the backup namespace to a content management system path in a local tree structure (Newhouse: [0025 and 0063]) and (Kleinpeter: [0021-0022, 0130, 0193, 0219, 0277]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 11, Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani disclose the method wherein the backup namespace is for an external directory (Kleinpeter: [0469 and 0474]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Examiner’s Comment
13 It is noted that the previously indicated as being allowable subject matter is now rejected in view of new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Newhouse in view of Kleinpeter and Mani discloses the applicant’s claimed invention as explained in the rejection above.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA M PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, APU MOFIZ can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/MONICA M PYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights