DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to continuation filed on September 27th, 2024.
Claims 1~27 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/26 and 09/27/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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).
Claims 1~27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1~27 of U.S Patent 12,132,778, claims 1~21 of U.S Patent 11,743,324, claims 1~20 of U.S. Patent 11,463,508, claims 1~21 of U.S Patent No. 11,418,577, claims 1~21 of U.S Patent No. 11,323,506, claims 1~24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,082,483 and claims 1~24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,999,355. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S Patents mentioned above anticipates claims 1~27 of the instant application.
For example, U.S Patents recite limitations with regards to copying data sets associated with provider accounts. Claims 1, 10, and 19 of the instant application recites copying subset of data from a provider account to the consumer of account, which is similar to the other U.S Patents. Hence, the U.S Patents cover every element of claims 1~27 of the instant application. A subset of the instant application’s claims are compared to the latest U.S Patent’s claims granted.
Instant Application 18/900,363
U.S Patent 12,132,778
1. A system, comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device to: copy, to a first cloud computing entity using a consumer account of the first cloud computing entity, a first subset of a data set associated with a provider account of a second cloud computing entity, wherein the provider account of the second cloud computing entity does not have access to the first cloud computing entity; and verify an existence of the first subset of the data set at the first cloud computing entity.
1. A method comprising: copying, to a first cloud computing entity using a consumer account of the first cloud computing entity, a first subset of a data set associated with a provider account of a second cloud computing entity, wherein the provider account of the second cloud computing entity does not have access to the first cloud computing entity; and copying, to a third cloud computing entity using a consumer account of the third cloud computing entity, a second subset of the data set, wherein the provider account of the second cloud computing entity does not have access to the third cloud computing entity; wherein the first subset of the data set is different from the second subset of the data set.
2. The system of claim 1, the processing device further to: copy, to a third cloud computing entity using a consumer account of the third cloud computing entity, a second subset of the data set, wherein the provider account of the second cloud computing entity does not have access to the third cloud computing entity, wherein the first subset of the data set is different from the second subset of the data set.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device grants access to a user, prohibited from accessing the data set on the second cloud computing entity, to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising granting access to a user, prohibited from accessing the data set on the second cloud computing entity, to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device further causes access by a user to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity to be filtered to restrict access to data associated with the user.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein access by a user to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity is filtered to restrict access to data associated with the user.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device: allows access by a user to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity; and disallows access by the user to the data set on the second cloud computing entity.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: allowing access by a user to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity; and disallowing access by the user to the data set on the second cloud computing entity.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the first cloud computing entity and the second cloud computing entity represent different geographic regions.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first cloud computing entity, the second cloud computing entity, and the third cloud computing entity represent different geographic regions.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device further causes changes to the data set in the second cloud computing entity to be replicated to the first cloud computing entity.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein changes to the data set in the second cloud computing entity are replicated to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device further copies the data set using an approval workflow.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first subset of the data set is copied using an approval workflow.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device periodically refreshes the first subset of the data set from the second cloud computing entity.
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising periodically refreshing the first subset of the data set from the second cloud computing entity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1~27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCarthy et al. hereinafter McCarthy (U.S 2015/0163206).
Regarding Claim 1,
McCarthy taught a system comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device to:
copy, to a first cloud computing entity using a consumer account of the first cloud computing entity, a first subset of a data set associated with a provider account of a second cloud computing entity [¶170, a first of the plurality of users may request a sharing access from the secure exchange server to a content item to at least a second of the plurality of users. The second of the plurality of users may then request a copy of the content from the secure exchange server, wherein a copy of the content is made],
wherein the provider account of the second cloud computing entity does not have access to the first cloud computing entity [¶170, users may be working for different business entities. Management for access to the content may be through an exchange content access facility 1008 managed by the intermediate business entity]; and
verify an existence of the first subset of the data set at the first cloud computing entity [¶66, whenever an exchange of data is initiated, such as by a document being received at the host server 102 connected to a host database 112, the host server may create a notification to the recipient(s) of the existence of the data at the host server].
Regarding Claim 2,
McCarthy taught the processing device further to: copy, to a third cloud computing entity using a consumer account of the third cloud computing entity, a second subset of the data set, wherein the provider account of the second cloud computing entity does not have access to the third cloud computing entity, wherein the first subset of the data set is different from the second subset of the data set [¶235, the spreadsheet viewer facility 292 may be used to render a plurality of different types of documents (to a document viewer on the client computing device which shows different data sets are present in the host server].
Regarding Claim 3,
McCarthy taught wherein the processing device grants access to a user, prohibited from accessing the data set on the second cloud computing entity, to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity [¶349, the first organizational entity is granted permissioned control of a first data storage node by the third organizational entity for storing data comprised of the content].
Regarding Claim 4,
McCarthy taught wherein the processing device further causes access by a user to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity to be filtered to restrict access to data associated with the user [¶135, providing a secure content viewer facility for the user to securely view the content on the user's client computing device, wherein the secure view is provided through a viewing restriction based on a user action].
Regarding Claim 5,
McCarthy taught wherein the processing device: allows access by a user to the first subset of the data set on the first cloud computing entity; and disallows access by the user to the data set on the second cloud computing entity [¶193, private channels may provide a means for ensuring that users do not see information from other organizations while using SSO, even if they are permissioned to other organizations' exchanges].
Regarding Claim 6,
McCarthy taught wherein the first cloud computing entity and the second cloud computing entity represent different geographic regions.
Regarding Claim 7,
McCarthy taught wherein the processing device further causes changes to the data set in the second cloud computing entity to be replicated to the first cloud computing entity [¶199, a synchronization facility 270 may be provided for metadata-based content synchronization, where the system may be utilized to provide synchronization and sharing of content].
Regarding Claim 8,
McCarthy taught wherein the processing device further copies the data set using an approval workflow [¶171, workflow between collaborating individuals].
Regarding Claim 9,
McCarthy taught wherein the processing device periodically refreshes the first subset of the data set from the second cloud computing entity [¶124, automatically notifying participants of updates to the content].
Regarding Claims 10~27, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~9 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443