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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20are presented for examination.
IDS filed on 3/24/25 is considered.
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 § 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Bruns et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,924,271 (hereinafter Bruns).
Brun discloses causing duplication of a file, received at a first file storage location associated with a first region, to a second file storage location associated with a second region to enable processing of the file from one of the first file storage location or the second file storage location, generating a record for the file in a record log, wherein the record identifies the file and the first file storage location, determining after generating the record, whether the record has been change, and refraining from processing the file based on determining that the record has been changed (Bruns, claim 1); determining whether the record has been changed after a threshold waiting period (Bruns, claim 2); wherein determining whether the record has been changed comprises: determining whether the record has been changed to identify a new time to live (TTL) value (Bruns, claim 1); enabling the device to detect whether another device associated with the second region is configured to process the file (Bruns, claim 4); determining whether an existing record for the file is present prior to generating the record (Bruns, claim 5); refraining from processing the file based on determining that the record has been changed to identify a new time to live value (Bruns, claim 1); wherein a polling interval enables the processing of the file at the first file storage location or the second file storage location (Bruns, claim 1).
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, 2, 4-13, 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamper et al. US Publication Number 2006/0155705, hereinafter Kamper.
Referring to claim 1, Kamper discloses a method (abstract, page 1 [0002]) comprising:
causing, by a device (server 110), duplication of a file (parent and child copies of file), received at a first file storage location associated with a first region (first user and associated client 120), to a second file storage location associated with a second region (second user and associated client 120) to enable processing of the file from one of the first file storage location or the second file storage location (client A and B 120)(abstract, figure 1, page 1 [0013], page 2 [0022], parent and child copies of the file are distributed to users to enable collaborative file processing by the clients);
generating, by the device (server 110), a record for the file in a record log (camping blocks 326), wherein the record identifies the file (files A-E) and the first file storage location (numbers 1-3)(page 3 [0032], camping blocks are generated for access);
determining, by the device after generating the record, whether the record has been changed (page 4 [0042][0043], determine time-out and access change after a pre-established time); and
refraining from processing the file based on determining that the record has changed (page 4 [0044], time-out with no more editing rights to the file).
Referring to claim 2, Kamper discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the record has been changed comprises: determining whether the record has been changed after a threshold waiting period (page 4 [0041][0042][0044], time-out and access change after a pre-established time).
Referring to claim 3, Kamper discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the record has been changed comprises: determining whether the record has been changed to identify a new time to live (TTL) value (page 1 [0013], page 3 [0032], access rights is given to a new user after the time out from previous user; page 3[0035], user access may be time-limited; page 4 [0043], user is given a preset amount of time to complete his file access).
Referring to claim 4, Kamper discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the record has been changed comprises: enabling the device to detect whether another device associated with the second region is configured to process the file (page 4 [0042][0043], determination made at 514 to determine whether there are other user queue to access the file).
Referring to claim 5, Kamper discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether an existing record for the file is present prior to generating the record (figure 3, page 3 [0032], updated record on camping blocks is generated to update the previous generated record).
Referring to claim 6, Kamper discloses the method of claim 1, wherein refraining from processing the file comprises: refraining from processing the file based on determining that the record has been changed to identify a new time to live value (page 1 [0013], page 3 [0032], access rights is given to a new user after the time out from previous user; page 3[0035], user access may be time-limited; page 4 [0043], user is given a preset amount of time to complete his file access).
Referring to claim 7, Kamper discloses the e method of claim 1, wherein a polling interval enables the processing of the file at the first file storage location or the second file storage location (page 2 [0022][0023], previous user provides editing attribute to the open file at the first client/storage location, and when the previous user completes his access to the file (polling interval for the first file storage location), the next user open the file for editing on his/her computer (second storage location) when the previous user releases the file (polling interval for the second file storage location).
Referring to claims 8-11, 14-18, the claims encompass the same scope of the invention as that of the claims 1-6. Therefore, claims 8-11, 14-18 are rejected on the same ground as the claims 1-6.
Referring to claims 12 and 19, Kamper discloses the invention as described in claims 8 and 15, wherein the one or more processors, to refrain from processing the file, are configured to: refrain from processing the file based on determining that the record is associated with a different region. (page 1 [0013], page 4 [0044], when access right is given to the next client/region, access rights to the previous user/region will be removed).
Referring to claims 13 and 20, Kamper discloses the invention as described in claims 8 and 15, wherein the record log is shared by the first region and the second region (figure 1 and figure 3, page 2 [0024], page 3 [0030][0032], file space and camping blocks are shared by the clients for file access).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objection made. Applicant must show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANGCHE A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3992. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am to 6:30pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Liang-che Alex Wang
July 27, 2026
/LIANG CHE A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights