Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 18/974,154, filed on 12/9/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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 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.
This application is a CON of 17/821,635 filed on 08/23/2022 is now US PAT 12174822 17/821,635 is a CON of 14/928,083 filed on 10/30/2015 is now US PAT 11455291 14/928,083 is a CON of 14/748,642 filed on 06/24/2015 is now US PAT 10521417 14/748,642 has PRO 62/016,457 filed on 06/24/2014
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 12/9/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 62/016,457 filed on 06/24/2014under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
Specification
in the specification, at para 001 (as filed 12/9/2024), applicant incorporated US Patent Application & provisional application # Examiner notes that incorporation by reference of an application in a printed United States patent constitutes a special circumstance under 35 U.S.C. § 122 warranting that access of the original disclosure of the application be granted. The incorporation by reference will be interpreted as a waiver of confidentiality of only the original disclosure as filed, and not the entire application file, In re Gallo, 231 USPQ 496 (Comm'r Pat. 1986). If Applicant objects to access to the entire application file, two copies of the information incorporated by reference must be submitted along with the objection. Failure to provide the material within the period provided will result in the entire application (including prosecution) being made available to petitioner. The Office will not attempt to separate the noted materials from the remainder of the application. Compare In re Marsh Engineering Co., 1913 C.D. 183 (Comm'r Pat. 1913).
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1-20 is/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, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
“a computer-implemented method executed by data processing apparatus that causes the data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a device, a request requesting to update a first version of a database with a second version of the database, the request comprising:
a first database version number representing a version of the second version of the database; and
a first value to update a corresponding second value of the second version of
the database;
determining, based on the first database version number of the request and a second database version number representing the version of the first version of the database, a conflict;
determining that a specific conflict resolution policy for the request overrides a default conflict resolution policy;
based on the specific conflict resolution policy, determining not to perform the request; and
providing, to the device, conflict response data indicating that the request was not performed, the conflict response data configured to cause the device to update the first value with the second value, the conflict response data comprising the second database version number”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example update a first version, update a first version, determining, based on the first database version number, determining that a specific conflict resolution policy, based on the specific conflict resolution policy, providing, to the device, conflict response data, in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mere maintain versions, conflict resolution.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of gallery images collect(ion) that identify particular match, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 8, para 0147-0158 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is tantamount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
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 method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition fig 8, para 0147-0158 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, 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, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts 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 (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,12, further elaborates “wherein the specific conflict resolution policy specifies that all conflicts are resolved in favor of the first version of the database”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3,13, further elaborates, “wherein the specific conflict resolution policy specifies that all conflicts are resolved in favor of the second version of the database”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4,14, further elaborates, “wherein determining the conflict comprises determining that the second database version number is different than the first database version number”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5,15, further elaborates, “wherein the specific conflict resolution policy specifies that all conflicts are resolved in favor of a value that will result in the highest value for an entity”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6,16, further elaborates, “wherein the request comprises the specific conflict resolution policy”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7,17. The method of claim 1, “wherein the first database version number and the second database version number comprise monotonically increasing values representing a number of updates to the database”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8,18, further elaborates, “wherein the operations further comprise, after providing the conflict response data, receiving, from the device, an update request requesting to update the second version of the database with the first version of the database”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9,19, further elaborates, “wherein the database comprises a plurality of entities, each respective entity of the plurality of entities uniquely identified by a respective key”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 10,20, further elaborates, “wherein the request comprises the respective key of an entity of the plurality of entities to update”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/974,154 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,174,822. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 18/974,154
US Patent No. 12,174,822
Claim 1,11, A computer-implemented method executed by data processing apparatus that causes the data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a device, a request requesting to update a first version of a database with a second version of the database, the request comprising:
a first database version number representing a version of the second version of the database; and
a first value to update a corresponding second value of the second version of
the database;
determining, based on the first database version number of the request and a second database version number representing the version of the first version of the database, a conflict;
determining that a specific conflict resolution policy for the request overrides a default conflict resolution policy;
based on the specific conflict resolution policy, determining not to perform the request; and
providing, to the device, conflict response data indicating that the request was not performed, the conflict response data configured to cause the device to update the first value with the second value, the conflict response data comprising the second database version number
Claim 1, 14, A computer-implemented method executed by data processing apparatus of a remote version of a database that causes the data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a client device, a request requesting to update the remote version of the database with a client version of the database, the remote version of the database comprising a first value for an entity and the client version of the database comprising a second value for the entity that is greater than the first value for the entity, the remote version of the database remote from the client device and the client version of the database stored on the client device, wherein the request comprises:
a client database version number representing a version of the client version of the database; and
a client value to update a corresponding remote value of the remote version of the database;
determining, based on the client database version number of the request and a remote database version number representing the version of the remote version of the database, a conflict;
based on a conflict resolution policy specific to the database, determining that the second value for the entity is greater than the first value for the entity;
based on determining that the second value for the entity is greater than the first value for the entity, determining not to perform the request; and
providing, to the client device, conflict response data indicating that the request was not performed, the conflict response data configured to cause the client device to update the second value for the entity of the client version of the database with the first value for the entity, the conflict response data comprising:
the remote database version number; and
the first value for the entity of the remote version of the database
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,174,822 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 18/974,154 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 23,33 instant application 18/974,154 providing, to the device, conflict response data indicating that the request was not performed, the conflict response data configured to cause the device to update the first value with the second value, the conflict response data comprising the second database version number while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,174,822, providing, to the client device, conflict response data indicating that the request was not performed, the conflict response data configured to cause the client device to update the second value for the entity of the client version of the database with the first value for the entity, the conflict response data limitation(s) is/are absent of the limitation from instant application 18/604,868 claim 1,11, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 1,11 are broader
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of claims 1, 10 to arrive at the claims 1,11 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/974,154 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,455,291. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 18/974,154
US Patent No. 11,455,291
Claim 1,11, A computer-implemented method executed by data processing apparatus that causes the data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a device, a request requesting to update a first version of a database with a second version of the database, the request comprising:
a first database version number representing a version of the second version of the database; and
a first value to update a corresponding second value of the second version of the database;
determining, based on the first database version number of the request and a second database version number representing the version of the first version of the database, a conflict;
determining that a specific conflict resolution policy for the request overrides a default conflict resolution policy;
based on the specific conflict resolution policy, determining not to perform the request; and
providing, to the device, conflict response data indicating that the request was not performed, the conflict response data configured to cause the device to update the first value with the second value, the conflict response data comprising the second database version number
Claim 1, 7,13, A method implemented by one or more data processing apparatus, the method comprising:
receiving, from a client device, a request for updates to a client version of a database stored on the client device, the client version of the database corresponding to a version of the database that is locally stored on the client device and locally mutable by the client device independent of other versions of the database, the request including i) a client database version number for the client version of the database and ii) a first cursor specifying a first logical position that indicates a particular database entity included in the client version of the database as a starting point for an update;
accessing a remote version of the database that is remote from the client device, the remote version of the database including a plurality of database entities, each database entity having a remote entity version that is assigned to the database entity in a monotonically increasing manner between the plurality of database entities for the database each time any database entity is updated in the database;
for each respective database entity of a plurality of the database entities included in an ordered subset of database entities that begins with a database entity that matches the particular database entity indicated by the first cursor:
determining, based on a comparison of a remote entity version number of the respective database entity and the client database version number, whether the respective database entity has been updated; and
when the respective database entity has been updated, providing an entity update to the client device that includes the remote entity version number of the respective database entity; and
providing to the client device for updating the client version of the database:
a remote database version number with at least one provided entity update, the remote database version number equal to a highest remote entity version number from among all the database entities in the remote version of the database and being higher than the remote entity version number included with each provided entity update; and
a second cursor specifying a second logical position that indicates a second particular database entity included in the client version of the database as a subsequent starting position for a subsequent update.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,455,291 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 18/974,154 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 23,33 instant application 18/974,154 providing, to the device, conflict response data indicating that the request was not performed, the conflict response data configured to cause the device to update the first value with the second value, the conflict response data comprising the second database version number while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,455,291, determining, based on a comparison of a remote entity version number of the respective database entity and the client database version number, whether the respective database entity has been updated; and
when the respective database entity has been updated, providing an entity update to the client device that includes the remote entity version number of the respective database entity limitation(s) is/are absent of the limitation from instant application 18/604,868 claim 1,11, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 1,11 are broader
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of claims 1,7,13 to arrive at the claims 1,11 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chasman et al., (hereafter Chasman), US Pub.No. 2007/0180075 published Aug,2007 in view of Dorman et al., (hereafter Dorman), US Pub. No. 2014/0201145 filed based on provisional application Jan, 2013
As to Claim 1,11, Chasman teaches a system which including “ A computer-implemented method executed by data processing apparatus that causes the data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising” (Chasman: fig 1, Abstract)
PNG
media_image1.png
224
193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“receiving, from a device, a request requesting to update a first version of a database with a second version of the database, the request comprising:” (Chasman: Abstract, fig 1-3, 0018-0019,0022– Chasman teaches synchronizing between two databases, more specifically data stored in replicated database periodically synchronized with the master database element 120 that including database properties such as type, identifier, version and like updated, further data type for example having identifiers, identical date/timestamps indicate versions, the prior art of Chasman’s fig 3 shows various data fields synchronization and after synchronization including version(s)
PNG
media_image2.png
258
225
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“a first database version number representing a version of the second version of the database” (Chasman: fig 5, 0025 – Chasman teaches data attributes of each database including particular version for example in the master database, business object version and replicated database business object version along with other attributes before synchronization and the prior art of Chasman teaches update data attributes including version) ; and
PNG
media_image3.png
265
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“a first value to update a corresponding second value of the second version of
the database” (Chasman” fig 5, 0024-0025 – Chasman teaches updated data attributes that including version);
PNG
media_image4.png
229
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“determining, based on the first database version number of the request and a second database version number representing the version of the first version of the database, a conflict” (Chasman: fig 4-5, 0025-0026 – Casman teaches both master database, replication database maintains respective version along with other attributes with respect to synchronization, while update request identifies “conflict exists”, and try to apply conflict resolution rules to determine based on the property values and like);
“ the conflict response data configured to cause the device to update the first value with the second value, the conflict response data comprising the second database version number” (Chasman: 0026-0027).
It is however, noted that Casman does not disclose “determining that a specific conflict resolution policy for the request overrides a default conflict resolution policy, based on the specific conflict resolution policy, determining not to perform the request”, “providing, to the device, conflict response data indicating that the request was not performed”, ;although, Casman suggests update request identifies conflict exists, while sync server element 116 may resolves the conflict using conflict resolution rules to detect conflict to determine what object values are affecting the conflict (Casman: 0026). On the other hand, Dorman disclosed “determining that a specific conflict resolution policy for the request overrides a default conflict resolution policy, based on the specific conflict resolution policy, determining not to perform the request;” (Dorman: Abstract, fig 4B-4C, 0076-0077,0090 – Dorman teaches conflict manager having synch failure detector associated with the conflict resolver(s) element 467).
“providing, to the device, conflict response data indicating that the request was not performed” (Doman: 0085 – Doman teaches sync client 400 identifies synch failure due to conflict has occurred, further conflict identifies specific failure reaon(s))
PNG
media_image5.png
302
420
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to use conflict resolution particularly detecting conflicts in a synchronizing event on the file system of Dorman et al., into synchronization of versions, particularly update[ing] conflicts according to rules in a synchronization of replicated databases of Chasman et al., because both Chasman, Dorman teaches synchronization of data (Chasman: Abstract, fig 1; Dorman: Abstract, 4B), and both Chasman, Dorman teaches detecting conflicts(Chasman: Abstract; Dorman: fig 4B-4C), and they both Chasman, Dorman are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Chasman, Dorman teaches synchronization of data, detecting conflicts, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly handling conflicts between incompatibles changes, identifying sync action failures including global failures and applying appropriate conflict resolution rules controlled by the conflicts manager (fig 4B-4C) and update data in real-time, further allows conflict manager retry condition manager to executes the retry condition in sync event(s) (Dorman: 0089-0090), thus improves the quality and reliability of the conflict resolution and sync data.
As to Claim 2,12, the combination of Chasman, Dorman disclosed “ wherein the specific conflict resolution policy specifies that all conflicts are resolved in favor of the first version of the database” (Chasman: fig 4-5, 0026-0027, Chasman maintains version stamp along with other attributes)
As to Claim 3,13, the combination of Chasman, Dorman disclosed “wherein the specific conflict resolution policy specifies that all conflicts are resolved in favor of the second version of the database” (Chasman: fig 4-5, 0025-0027, Chasman teaches maintains updated attributes with respect o conflict resolution policy).
As to Claim 4,14, the combination of Chasman, Dorman disclosed “wherein determining the conflict comprises determining that the second database version number is different than the first database version number” (Chasman: fig 5, 0025, master database version is different from replicated database version)
PNG
media_image6.png
136
317
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 5,15, the combination of Chasman, Dorman disclosed “wherein the specific conflict resolution policy specifies that all conflicts are resolved in favor of a value that will result in the highest value for an entity” (Chasman: 0026-0027).
As to Claim 6,16, the combination of Chasman, Dorman disclosed “wherein the request comprises the specific conflict resolution policy” (Chasman: 0026; Dorman: fig 4A04D, 0042-0043).
As to Claim 7,17, the combination of Chasman, Dorman disclosed “wherein the first database version number and the second database version number comprise monotonically increasing values representing a number of updates to the database”
PNG
media_image6.png
136
317
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
As to Claim 8,18, the combination of Chasman, Dorman disclosed “wherein the operations further comprise, after providing the conflict response data, receiving, from the device, an update request requesting to update the second version of the database with the first version of the database” (Dorman: Abstract, fig 4B-4C, 0076-0077,0090)
As to Claim 9,19, the combination of Chasman, Dorman disclosed “wherein the database comprises a plurality of entities, each respective entity of the plurality of entities uniquely identified by a respective key” (Chasman: fig 4-5 – Chasman teaches data structure defining data types of respective attributes, ie., plurality of entries uniquely identified such as time stamp, version and like)
As to Claim 10,20, the combination of Chasman, Dorman disclosed “wherein the request comprises the respective key of an entity of the plurality of entities to update” (Chasman: fig 4-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2007/0180075
b. US Pub. No. 2014/0201145
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154