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 action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent claims.
Contingent Limitations
Section MPEP 2111.04(II) sets forth, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” The following are contingent limitations which may not be required.
Claim 2 is a method claim. The limitation “in response to determining the server schema version, document schema version, and client schema version are the same, applying the received change to the document and returning an indication of success to the client device” is a contingent limitation and not required when the preceding determination step is not affirmed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 does not require this contingent limitation. Any mapping provided for unrequired contingent limitations is for the sake of compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 3 is a method claim. The limitation “in response to determining either of the document schema version or the client schema version are newer than the server schema version, logging an error for the received change to the document and returning an indication of failure to the client device” is a contingent limitation and not required when the preceding determination step is not affirmed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3 does not require this contingent limitation. Any mapping provided for unrequired contingent limitations is for the sake of compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 4 is a method claim. The limitation “in response to determining the server schema version is a new version and the document schema version and client schema version are an old version, applying the changes to the document using the old version of the document schema version and client schema version, migrating the document to the new version of the server schema version, and returning an indication of success and instruction to perform a soft reload to the client device” is a contingent limitation and not required when the preceding determination step is not affirmed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 does not require this contingent limitation. Any mapping provided for unrequired contingent limitations is for the sake of compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 5 is a method claim. The limitation “in response to determining the server schema version and the client schema version are a new version and the document schema version is an old version, migrating the document to the new version of the server schema version and the client schema version, applying the changes to the document, and returning an indication of success to the client device” is a contingent limitation and not required when the preceding determination step is not affirmed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 does not require this contingent limitation. Any mapping provided for unrequired contingent limitations is for the sake of compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 6 is a method claim. The limitation “in response to determining the server schema version and the document schema version are a new version and the client schema version is an old version, attempting to apply the changes to the document using the new version of the server schema version and the document schema version and determining whether attempting to apply the changes to the document was successful” is a contingent limitation and not required when the preceding determination step is not affirmed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6 does not require this contingent limitation. Any mapping provided for unrequired contingent limitations is for the sake of compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Dependent claims 7 and 8, as wholes, recite unrequired contingent limitations tied to the contingency set forth in parent claim 6. Any mapping provided for unrequired contingent limitations is for the sake of compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richardson et al. (US 2009/0327302 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Richardson teaches a method for version conflict resolution in a cloud-based collaboration environment (FIGS. 1-3 and [0017-0041]), the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a collaboration server, a request for a document from a client device, wherein the document describes a layout of a content hub of the cloud-based collaboration environment, and wherein the document is defined according to a schema having a document schema version and a server schema version maintained by the collaboration server (FIG. 3 and [0036-0040], FIG. 4 and [0042-0051]: for example, a client system 102a requests server system 106b access for a document defined by schema 304, having a document schema version and a server schema version. A document schema version is one which is synced from the server system 106a to the client system 102a. A server schema version is one which is stored at and maintained by the server. Note that server system 106b may or may not be the same as server system 106a as set forth in [0049].);
providing, by the processor of the collaboration server (processor 208 of server system 106 of FIG. 2 and [0027-0035]), the document to the client device in response to the request, wherein the document is provided according to the server schema version for the document (FIG. 3 and [0036-0040], FIG. 4 and [0042-0051]: as supported in [0049], the document is “synced from the server system 106a to the client system 102a”, thus it is provided according to the server schema version);
receiving, by the processor of the collaboration server, a change to the document from the client device (FIG. 4 and [0047-0051], blocks 602, 604, 702, and 701 of FIG. 7, [0063-0067], and [0081-0084]: revisions to the document are received by the server system 106 from the client system 102); and
resolving, by the processor of the collaboration server, version conflicts for the document based on the document schema version, server schema version and a client schema version for the document used by the client device in the change to the document (blocks 706, 716, 718, 710, 720, 726, and 728 of FIG. 7 and [0084-0092]: version conflicts are resolved in two different pathways starting from block 706 based on the document schema version, server schema version, and client schema version. When conflicts result in the rejection of revisions incorporated in the sync from the client system to the server system, these are known as “refuse errors; block 604 of FIG. 7 and [0063-0067]: a client schema version is one which is used by the client device when in the revision of/change to the document).
Regarding claim 2, Richardson further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein resolving version conflicts for the document comprises:
determining whether the server schema version, document schema version, and client schema version are the same; and
in response to determining the server schema version, document schema version, and client schema version are the same, applying the received change to the document and returning an indication of success to the client device (FIG. 7 and [0080-0091], FIG. 9 and [0108-0116]: when all versions are the same, the received change is applied to the document and an indication of success is returned to the client via transmission of sync report).
Regarding claim 3, Richardson further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein resolving version conflicts for the document comprises:
determining whether either of the document schema version or the client schema version are newer than the server schema version; and
in response to determining either of the document schema version or the client schema version are newer than the server schema version, logging an error for the received change to the document and returning an indication of failure to the client device (FIG. 7 and [0080-0091]: a client schema version is newer than the server schema version when revisions are made to create a new version as supported by at least blocks 602 and 604. In response, an error may be logged by rejection revisions at block 716 and accordingly an indication of failure is returned to the client device via transmission of sync report from block 710 to block 720).
Regarding claim 4, Richardson further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein resolving version conflicts for the document comprises:
determining whether the server schema version is a new version and the document schema version and client schema version are an old version ()FIG. 7 and [0080-0091]: a client schema version is newer than the server schema version when revisions are made to create a new version as supported by at least blocks 602 and 604. In response, an error may be logged by rejection revisions at block 716 and accordingly an indication of failure is returned to the client device via transmission of sync report from block 710 to block 720. Therefore, the document schema version is not an old version; and
in response to determining the server schema version is a new version and the document schema version and client schema version are an old version, applying the changes to the document using the old version of the document schema version and client schema version, migrating the document to the new version of the server schema version, and returning an indication of success and instruction to perform a soft reload to the client device (unrequired contingent limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Richardson further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein resolving version conflicts for the document comprises:
determining whether the server schema version and the client schema version are a new version and the document schema version is an old version (FIG. 7 and [0080-0091]: a client schema version is newer than the server schema version when revisions are made to create a new version as supported by at least blocks 602 and 604. In response, an error may be logged by rejection revisions at block 716 and accordingly an indication of failure is returned to the client device via transmission of sync report from block 710 to block 720. Therefore, the document schema version is not an old version); and
in response to determining the server schema version and the client schema version are a new version and the document schema version is an old version, migrating the document to the new version of the server schema version and the client schema version, applying the changes to the document, and returning an indication of success to the client device (unrequired contingent limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Richardson further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein resolving version conflicts for the document comprises:
determining whether the server schema version and the document schema version are a new version and the client schema version is an old version (FIG. 7 and [0080-0091]: a client schema version is newer than the server schema version when revisions are made to create a new version as supported by at least blocks 602 and 604. In response, an error may be logged by rejection revisions at block 716 and accordingly an indication of failure is returned to the client device via transmission of sync report from block 710 to block 720. Therefore, prior to block 706 the server schema version is not a new version); and
in response to determining the server schema version and the document schema version are a new version and the client schema version is an old version, attempting to apply the changes to the document using the new version of the server schema version and the document schema version and determining whether attempting to apply the changes to the document was successful (unrequired contingent limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Richardson further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein resolving version conflicts for the document comprises, in response to determining attempting to apply the changes to the document was successful, returning an indication of success and an instruction to perform a soft reload to the client device (unrequired contingent limitation).
Regarding claim 8, Richardson further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein resolving version conflicts for the document comprises, in response to determining attempting to apply the changes to the document was not successful, returning an indication of failure and an instruction to perform a soft reload to the client device (unrequired contingent limitation).
Regarding claims 9-11, the claims recite a system comprising:
a processor; and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor (server system 106 of FIG. 2 and [0027-0035]), causes the processor to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claims 15-17, the claims recite a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which, when executed by a processor (server system 106 of FIG. 2 and [0027-0035]), causes the processor to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 2011/0173294 A1: handling conflict resolution between older version schemas and new version schemas
US 2009/0228509 A1: identifying conflicts to resolve and updating dataset as a data repository reset exception handling on the sync server side
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
