Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/048,014

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HANDLING IMPLICIT TRANSACTIONS IN A HYBRID CLOUD CACHE

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Feb 07, 2025
Examiner
PENG, HUAWEN A
Art Unit
2169
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Egnyte Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
586 granted / 712 resolved
+27.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
726
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.9%
+2.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 712 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION 1. This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed 1/20/2026. Claims 2-20 have been cancelled. Claim 1 is pending in this application. This action is made Final. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Double Patenting 3. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,714,803. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. U.S. Patent Application 19/048,014 Claim 1 A system, comprising: a set of computer-executable instructions; and a processor or processors that execute the set of instructions, wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to: obtain a meta-file from a cloud platform, the meta-file including metadata associated with a set of objects; compare the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform to a meta- file obtained from a hybrid cloud cache; and transfer an object associated with an implicit metadata transaction to an internal namespace if the comparing indicates that: the object is present only in the meta-file obtained from the hybrid cloud cache; or the object is present in both the meta-file obtained from the hybrid cloud cache and the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform and a name of the object in the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform and in the meta-file obtained from the hybrid cloud cache do not match; or the object is present only in the meta--file obtained from the cloud platform and the object is cached by the hybrid cloud cache. U.S. Patent No. 11,714,803 Claim 1 A system, comprising: a set of computer-executable instructions; and a processor or processors that execute the set of instructions, wherein when executed, the instructions cause the processor or processors to obtain a copy of a meta-file from a cloud platform, the meta-file including metadata associated with a set of files and folders in a namespace of the cloud platform; compare the copy of the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform to a copy of the meta-file obtained from a hybrid cloud cache; transfer an object associated with an implicit metadata transaction to an orphanage of the hybrid cloud cache if the comparing indicates that: the object is present only in the copy of the meta-file obtained from the hybrid cloud cache; or the object is present in both the copy of the meta-file obtained from the hybrid cloud cache and the copy of the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform and a name of the object in the copy obtained from the cloud platform and in the copy obtained from the hybrid cloud cache do not match; or the object is present only in the copy of the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform and the object is cached by the hybrid cloud cache; conduct a bottom-up traversal of a namespace tree of the orphanage of the hybrid cloud cache; abort the bottom-up traversal of the orphanage namespace tree if an outstanding explicit transaction for the object is present in the hybrid cloud cache or if the object still exists in the namespace of the cloud platform; and move the object to a purgatory of the hybrid cloud cache if the outstanding explicit transaction for the object is not present and the object does not exist in the namespace of the cloud platform. It is noted that the claimed limitations of claim 1 of Patent Application 19/048,014 is not patentably distinct from that of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,714,803. It appears to be proper to apply the judicially created doctrine of obvious-type double patenting to the claims at issue. Allowable Subject Matter 5. Claim 1 would become allowable if the obvious-type double patenting rejection is overcome. As noted above, this rejection can be overturned by filing a terminal disclaimer. Claim 1 would be considered allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose each and every element of the Applicant's claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach and/or suggest “compare the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform to a meta-file obtained from a hybrid cloud cache; and transfer an object associated with an implicit metadata transaction to an internal namespace if the comparing indicates that: the object is present only in the meta-file obtained from the hybrid cloud cache; or the object is present in both the meta-file obtained from the hybrid cloud cache and the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform and a name of the object in the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform and in the meta-file obtained from the hybrid cloud cache do not match; or the object is present only in the meta-file obtained from the cloud platform and the object is cached by the hybrid cloud cache”. The preceding limitations, when combined with the rest of the limitations recited in claim 1 results in a combination of elements that is both novel and unobvious over the prior art of record. Conclusion 6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAWEN A PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-5215. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Fri 9 am to 5 pm. 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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. /HUAWEN A PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 07, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jan 20, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602367
DATA INTEGRITY CHECKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602625
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CREATING A RICH SOCIAL MEDIA PROFILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598135
TECHNIQUES TO BALANCE LOG STRUCTURED MERGE TREES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12579160
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR GENERATING, EXTRACTING, CLASSIFYING, AND FORMATTING OBJECT METADATA USING NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN AN ELECTRONIC NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567274
GEOGRAPHIC MANAGEMENT OF DOCUMENT CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.1%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 712 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month