DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this 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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newhouse (US PGPUB No. 2017/0109370) in view of Anderson et al. (US PGPUB No. 2006/0004765) [hereinafter “Anderson”].
As per claim 1, Newhouse teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a user account registered with a content management system, a request to access a content item managed by the content management system for the user account ([0022], executing a client application for a user to request access to content in a local or shared directory using a user account of the content management system see [0046]); determining that the content item is associated with an attribute that is stored as respective node metadata of a tree data structure at the content management system (Abstract, metadata is stored with the content item in a local or shared directory, i.e. tree structure see [0045]); based on the attribute in the respective node metadata for the content item, handling the content item based on one or more behaviors defined by the attribute ([0023], In Newhouse, one example attribute is the size of the content, which is used to determine whether to allow certain user and system behaviors like adding or deleting to the local directory) see also ([0049], other system behaviors include retention of content items, transferring content items and preventing access attempts to content items while storage space is exceeded), wherein the one or more behaviors include whether one or more actions are to be suppressed or allowed ([0024] and [0046], allowing adding to the local directory if the file size does not increase the allotted storage capacity past a threshold – as long as the storage capacity is exceeded adding of the content is not allowed, i.e. it is suppressed); and initiating the one or more behaviors in response to the request to access the content item ([0024] and [0046], adding the requested new content after managing storage capacity).
Newhouse does not explicitly teach a node in a tree data structure at the content management system, wherein the tree data structure comprises a representation of a directory structure of content items within the content management system, the tree data structure being stored separately from the directory structure of content items at the content management system. Anderson teaches a node in a tree data structure at the content management system, wherein the tree data structure comprises a representation of a directory structure of content items within the content management system ([0040] and [0072], storing a local copy of remote file system where attributes are decoupled from content and stored separately – file system is tree/directory based see [0024] and [0032]), the tree data structure being stored separately from the directory structure of content items at the content management system ([0073], attributes and content are stored separately see claim 1).
At the time of fling, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Newhouse with the teachings of Anderson, a node in a tree data structure at the content management system, wherein the tree data structure comprises a representation of a directory structure of content items within the content management system, the tree data structure being stored separately from the directory structure of content items at the content management system, to provide flexibility in securing content data while still easily located and accessed.
As per claim 2, the combination of the combination of Newhouse and Anderson and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors include displaying a particular interface when the content item is accessed or redirecting a respective user to a specific destination (Newhouse; [0132], presenting a pop-up menu which asks user to authorize download of content item).
As per claim 3, the combination of Newhouse and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors include moving the content item (Newhouse; [0132], downloading content item into local directory from shared directory), renaming the content item (Examiner Note: optional feature – could potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature), or modifying the content item in a particular manner (Examiner Note: optional feature – possible citation provided to expedite prosecution) (Newhouse; [0045], user is also able to request modification of file in local directory).
As per claim 4, the combination of Newhouse and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors include displaying custom icons (Newhouse; [0094]-[0095], content type, modifications or access times can be represented using icons that are specific to file type and its status) (Examiner Note: a specific definition for “custom icon” was not clearly provided in the specification, see [0101] of the specification, and thus a “custom icon” will be interpreted to include an icon that has been designed to represent a particular type of content item) or modifying a respective menu associated with the content item (Examiner Note: this is an optional and may potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature).
As per claim 5, the combination of Newhouse and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors include synchronizing content changes across one or more devices (Newhouse; [0073], synchronizing changes to files and metadata across shared directory and file system).
As per claim 6, the combination of Newhouse and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the attribute is a type-based custom attribute, wherein the one or more behaviors are determined by a respective type of the content item matching a type associated with the type-based custom attribute (Newhouse; [0058], access frequency attribute can be “customized” based on certain content attributes including type, domain and namespace – ex. Measuring access frequency for a type of content across a particular domain is considered a “custom” attribute).
As per claim 7, the combination of Newhouse and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a customization that changes the one or more behaviors (Newhouse; [0024], One example of customization in the combination of Newhouse and Anderson is selection of the basis for the access frequency and subsequently how the frequency is calculated, see [0058]-[0059] and [0111], the selection can include content item type, name space, domain or any other content attribute) also (See id. This “changes” which content items are determined to be high/low frequency which “changes” which content items are moved and which ones are deleted when the storage space threshold is exceeded).
As per claim 8, the combination of Newhouse and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the one or more behaviors are initiated in response to a confirmation that the type of the content item matches the type-based custom attribute (Newhouse; [0027] and [0111], “Retention” is interpreted by the Examiner to be a behavior. the combination of Newhouse and Anderson describes how the retention score may be calculated based on many different attributes including “type” of the content item. This means that the content item’s type is first determined, and then the operation of calculating the retention score will be performed based on this “type” determination.) see also (Newhouse; [0112], access frequency attribute and retention criteria for a content item is a custom combination of access attributes determined by its type and other content items with similar attributes).
As per claim 9, the combination of Newhouse and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more behaviors are initiated in response to a request to modify the content item (Newhouse; [0049], System behaviors such as retention, transferring content items and preventing access attempts, while storage space is exceeded, are triggered when a client/user makes an access attempt which includes modification of a content item – this modification triggers various operations that determine which content items to retain, transfer or delete.).
As per claim 10, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 8. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and in light of the new amendments, Examiner has introduced and cited to a new prior art reference, Anderson.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carr et al. (US PGPUB No. 2005/0278270), Bobbitt et al. (US Patent No. 7,024,427), Jackson et al. (US PGPUB No. 2023/0306005), Dong et al. ("Low-Latency and Scalable Full-path Indexing Metadata Service for Distributed File Systems," 2023 IEEE 41st International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD), Washington, DC, USA, 2023, pp. 283-290, doi: 10.1109/ICCD58817.2023.00051), Wang et al. ("Accelerating Metadata Management of DFS via Speculative Permission Checking," 2026 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2026, pp. 3039-3052, doi: 10.1109/ICDE65706.2026.00226) and Amann et al. ("Cryptographically Enforced Permissions for Fully Decentralized File Systems," 2010 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), Delft, Netherlands, 2010, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1109/P2P.2010.5569990) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including storing metadata separately from content and using it to grant permission to access content.
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 PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights