DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 19/205479 filed on May 08, 2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
3. The Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Pg. 12 of remarks in regards to claim 102, relating to claim 1, Applicant argues “As discussed above, Bhargava discloses a system that manages "assets" that are entire files, in contrast to the claimed components. See Bhargava col. 16 line 57 - col. 17 line 3; col. 19, lines 14-25. Bhargava fails to disclose "maintaining a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset, wherein each of the components comprises a discrete portion of the digital asset that is modifiable without affecting other components of the digital asset," "generating...an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset," "synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the first computing device and the modified second component" and "synchronizing the digital asset for the second computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the second computing device and the modified first component," as recited by currently amended independent claims 9 and 17”.
Examiner replies that Bhargava does teach this concept. Col. 17 Lines 27-32 Bhargava discloses the revisions contain deltas for the files. The deltas are seen as modifiable without affecting other components. Col. 19 Lines 27-32 Bhargava discloses files contain different versions. Col. 19 Lines 14-25 Bhargava discloses the manifest stores the information related to the stored asset.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites “determining, based on the first component manifest and the second component manifest, that a conflict exists for the digital asset between one or more components stored on the computing device and one or more components for the digital asset stored at the cloud synchronization system” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining that manifest that represent two different storage locations contain different information that would represent a conflict. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can view and read two documents that represent information located at two different data sources and recognize that a conflict exist.
Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, "maintaining, at a computing device, a first component manifest that maps components making up a digital asset, wherein each of the components comprises a discrete portion of the digital asset that is modifiable without affecting other components of the digital asset, and wherein the components are stored in different locations on the computing device”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “receiving, from a cloud synchronization system, a second component manifest for the digital asset”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and sending based on determining that the conflict exists, a component modified at the computing device and the first component manifest to the cloud synchronization system to resolve the conflict” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "maintaining, at a computing device, a first component manifest that maps components making up a digital asset, wherein the components are stored in different locations on the computing device”, “receiving, from a cloud synchronization system, a second component manifest for the digital asset”, “and sending a component modified at the computing device and the first component manifest to the cloud synchronization system to resolve the conflict”.
For example, “maintaining, at a computing device, a first component manifest that maps components making up a digital asset, wherein the components are stored in different locations on the computing device”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “receiving, from a cloud synchronization system, a second component manifest for the digital asset” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and sending a component modified at the computing device and the first component manifest to the cloud synchronization system to resolve the conflict”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “replace the second component manifest with the first component manifest” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example “and replace a corresponding component with the component modified at the computing device” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “replace the second component manifest with the first component manifest”, “and replace a corresponding component with the component modified at the computing device”.
For example, “replace the second component manifest with the first component manifest”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and replace a corresponding component with the component modified at the computing device”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein sending that component modified at the computing device to the cloud synchronization system comprises sending the component modified at the computing device without sending other components making up the digital asset” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein sending that component modified at the computing device to the cloud synchronization system comprises sending the component modified at the computing device without sending other components making up the digital asset”.
For example, “wherein sending that component modified at the computing device to the cloud synchronization system comprises sending the component modified at the computing device without sending other components making up the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “receiving an updated component from the cloud synchronization system” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and manifest the updated component to a conflicting component stored at the computing device” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving an updated component from the cloud synchronization system”, “and manifest the updated component to a conflicting component stored at the computing device”.
For example, “receiving an updated component from the cloud synchronization system”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and manifest the updated component to a conflicting component stored at the computing device”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “further comprising replacing the conflicting component with the updated component” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising replacing the conflicting component with the updated component”.
For example, “further comprising replacing the conflicting component with the updated component”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “adding the updated component and the conflicting component to the digital asset” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and displaying the digital asset with both the updated component and the conflicting component” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “adding the updated component and the conflicting component to the digital asset”, “and displaying the digital asset with both the updated component and the conflicting component”.
For example, “adding the updated component and the conflicting component to the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and displaying the digital asset with both the updated component and the conflicting component”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein: the digital asset comprises a digital image” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and the components comprises image layers” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein: the digital asset comprises a digital image”, “and the components comprises image layers”.
For example, “wherein: the digital asset comprises a digital image”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and the components comprises image layers”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “the digital asset comprises a Portable Document Format file” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and the components comprises pages” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “the digital asset comprises a Portable Document Format file”, “and the components comprises pages”.
For example, “the digital asset comprises a Portable Document Format file”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and the components comprises pages”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 recites “generating an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to generate a component that maps the first component and modified component to a digital object. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can view and read two documents that represent information located at two different data sources and recognize that a conflict exist.
Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 9 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, "maintaining a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset”, “wherein each of the components comprises a discrete portion of the digital asset that is modifiable without affecting other components of the digital asset”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, " providing, to a first computing device and a second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a first component of the digital asset”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a second component of the digital asset” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “generating, based on determining that the first computing device and the second computing device have modified the digital asset, an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, "maintaining, at a computing device, a first component manifest that maps components making up a digital asset, wherein the components are stored in different locations on the computing device” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the first computing device and the modified second component” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and synchronizing the digital asset for the second computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the second computing device and the modified first component” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "maintaining a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset”, “providing, to a first computing device and a second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset”, “determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a first component of the digital asset”, “determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a second component of the digital asset” , “generating an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset”, “synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the first computing device and the modified second component”, “and synchronizing the digital asset for the second computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the second computing device and the modified first component”.
For example, “maintaining a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “providing, to a first computing device and a second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a first component of the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a second component of the digital asset” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “generating an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the first computing device and the modified second component”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and synchronizing the digital asset for the second computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the second computing device and the modified first component”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 10, specifically claim 10 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein providing, the first computing device and the second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset comprises providing access to the digital asset via a cloud-based application hosted by the one or more servers” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein providing, the first computing device and the second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset comprises providing access to the digital asset via a cloud-based application hosted by the one or more servers”.
For example, “wherein providing, the first computing device and the second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset comprises providing access to the digital asset via a cloud-based application hosted by the one or more servers”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 11, specifically claim 11 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 11 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device causes the first computing device to display an updated version of the digital asset comprising the modified second component” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device causes the first computing device to display an updated version of the digital asset comprising the modified second component”.
For example, “wherein synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device causes the first computing device to display an updated version of the digital asset comprising the modified second component”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 12 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying the first component of the digital asset comprises receiving a first component mapping from the first computing device indicating that the first component has been modified” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying the second component of the digital asset comprises receiving a second component mapping from the second computing device indicating that the second component has been modified” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying the first component of the digital asset comprises receiving a first component mapping from the first computing device indicating that the first component has been modified”, “and determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying the second component of the digital asset comprises receiving a second component mapping from the second computing device indicating that the second component has been modified”.
For example, “determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying the first component of the digital asset comprises receiving a first component mapping from the first computing device indicating that the first component has been modified”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying the second component of the digital asset comprises receiving a second component mapping from the second computing device indicating that the second component has been modified”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites “determining, based on the first component mapping and the second component mapping, that a conflict exists for the digital asset” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to generate a component that maps the first component and modified component to a digital object. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can view and read two documents that represent information located at two different data sources and recognize that a conflict exist.
Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 13 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, "and synchronizing the digital asset is performed in response to determining that the conflict exists”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "and synchronizing the digital asset is performed in response to determining that the conflict exists”.
For example, “and synchronizing the digital asset is performed in response to determining that the conflict exists”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 14, specifically claim 14 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 14 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the operations further comprise resolving the conflict by merging most recently updated versions of each component into a single version of the digital asset” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise resolving the conflict by merging most recently updated versions of each component into a single version of the digital asset”.
For example, “wherein the operations further comprise resolving the conflict by merging most recently updated versions of each component into a single version of the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites "wherein the operations further comprise identifying the most recently updated versions of each component from the component mapping, the first component mapping, and the second component mapping” in the context this claim a human person can mentally view a piece of paper that has updated versions of component from a component mapping. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can view and read two documents that represent information located at two different data sources and recognize that a conflict exist. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
For example, “performing a homomorphic encoding operation; and performing a heteromorphic encoding operation” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally mapping segments to different indexes or different definitions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the operations further comprise storing each of the components of the digital asset as separate files instead of storing the digital asset as a monolithic file” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise storing each of the components of the digital asset as separate files instead of storing the digital asset as a monolithic file”.
For example, “wherein the operations further comprise storing each of the components of the digital asset as separate files instead of storing the digital asset as a monolithic file”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites “generating, based on determining that the first computing device and the second computing device have modified the digital asset, an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to generate a component that maps the first component and modified component to a digital object. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can view and read two documents that represent information located at two different data sources and recognize that a conflict exist.
Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 17 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, "maintaining a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset, wherein each of the components comprises a discrete portion of the digital asset that is modifiable without affecting other components of the digital asset”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, " providing, to a first computing device and a second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a first component of the digital asset”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a second component of the digital asset” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “generating an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, "maintaining, at a computing device, a first component manifest that maps components making up a digital asset, wherein the components are stored in different locations on the computing device” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the first computing device and the modified second component” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and synchronizing the digital asset for the second computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the second computing device and the modified first component” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "maintaining a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset”, “providing, to a first computing device and a second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset”, “determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a first component of the digital asset”, “determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a second component of the digital asset” , “generating an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset”, “synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the first computing device and the modified second component”, “and synchronizing the digital asset for the second computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the second computing device and the modified first component”.
For example, “maintaining a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “providing, to a first computing device and a second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a first component of the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a second component of the digital asset” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “generating an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the first computing device and the modified second component”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and synchronizing the digital asset for the second computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the second computing device and the modified first component”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 18 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein providing, the first computing device and the second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset comprises providing access to the digital asset via a cloud-based application hosted by the one or more servers” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein providing, the first computing device and the second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset comprises providing access to the digital asset via a cloud-based application hosted by the one or more servers”.
For example, “wherein providing, the first computing device and the second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset comprises providing access to the digital asset via a cloud-based application hosted by the one or more servers”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 19, specifically claim 19 recites “determining, based on the first component mapping and the second component mapping, that a conflict exists for the digital asset” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to generate a component that maps the first component and modified component to a digital object. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can view and read two documents that represent information located at two different data sources and recognize that a conflict exist.
Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 19 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, "and synchronizing the digital asset is performed in response to determining that the conflict exists”, is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "and synchronizing the digital asset is performed in response to determining that the conflict exists”.
For example, “and synchronizing the digital asset is performed in response to determining that the conflict exists”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 20, specifically claim 20 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 20 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the operations further comprise resolving the conflict by merging most recently updated versions of each component into a single version of the digital asset” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise resolving the conflict by merging most recently updated versions of each component into a single version of the digital asset”.
For example, “wherein the operations further comprise resolving the conflict by merging most recently updated versions of each component into a single version of the digital asset”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhargava et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,868,506 (herein as ‘Bhargava’).
As to claim 1 Bhargava teaches a method comprising:
maintaining, at a computing device, a first component manifest that maps components making up a digital asset, where each of the components comprises a discrete portion of the digital asset that is modifiable without affecting other components of the digital assets, and wherein the components are stored in different locations on the computing device (Col. 17 Lines 27-32 Bhargava discloses the revisions contain deltas for the files. The deltas are seen as modifiable without affecting other components. Col. 19 Lines 27-32 Bhargava discloses files contain different versions. Col. 19 Lines 14-25 Bhargava discloses the manifest stores the information related to the stored asset);
receiving, from a cloud synchronization system, a second component manifest for the digital asset (Col. 19 Lines 14-20 and 29-35 Bhargava discloses receiving modifications to the working copy file. The modifications to the asset produce changes in the working copy manifest which are seen as the second component manifest);
determining, based on the first component manifest and the second component manifest, that a conflict exists for the digital asset between one or more components stored on the computing device and one or more components for the digital asset stored at the cloud synchronization system (Col. 28 Lines 3-6 Bhargava discloses data conflicts occur when the target for an asset in the working copy and the repository both contain file data modifications);
and sending based on determining that the conflicts exists, a component modified at the computing device and the first component manifest to the cloud synchronization system to resolve the conflict (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “mine” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the user in the local working copy).
As to claim 2 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein sending the component modified at the computing device and the first component manifest to the cloud synchronization system to resolve the conflict causes the cloud synchronization system to:
replace the second component manifest with the first component manifest (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “mine” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the user in the local working copy);
and replace a corresponding component with the component modified at the computing device (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “theirs” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the server in the server storage working copy).
As to claim 3 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein sending that component modified at the computing device to the cloud synchronization system comprises sending the component modified at the computing device without sending other components making up the digital asset (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “mine” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the user in the local working copy).
As to claim 4 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Bhargava teaches further comprising: receiving an updated component from the cloud synchronization system and manifest the updated component to a conflicting component stored at the computing device (Col. 19 Lines 14-20 and 29-35 Bhargava discloses receiving modifications to the working copy file. Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “theirs” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the server in the server storage working copy).
As to claim 5 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 4.
In addition Bhargava teaches further comprising replacing the conflicting component with the updated component (Col. 28 Lines 60-68 Bhargava discloses the existing file is replaced by the target file).
As to claim 6 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 4.
In addition Bhargava teaches further comprising: adding the updated component and the conflicting component to the digital asset (Col. 28 Lines 60-68 Bhargava discloses the existing file is replaced by the target file);
and displaying the digital asset with both the updated component and the conflicting component (Col. 8 Lines 48-51 Bhargava discloses the user is able to view a display of all revisions for a file. Col. 28 Lines 5-9 Bhargava discloses merging the file modifications. Displaying the merged file modifications is seen as displaying both the updated component and the conflicting component).
As to claim 9 Bhargava teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more servers, cause the one or more servers to perform operations comprising:
maintaining a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset (Col. 19 Lines 14-25 Bhargava discloses the manifest stores the information related to the stored asset);
where each of the components comprises a discrete portion of the digital asset that is modifiable without affecting other components of the digital asset (Col. 17 Lines 27-32 Bhargava discloses the revisions contain deltas for the files. The deltas are seen as modifiable without affecting other components. Col. 19 Lines 27-32 Bhargava discloses files contain different versions. Col. 19 Lines 14-25 Bhargava discloses the manifest stores the information related to the stored asset);
providing, to a first computing device and a second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset (Col. 25 Lines 65-67 Bhargava discloses simultaneous changes in two versions of the asset. Col. 3 Lines 50-55 Bhargava discloses two transactions arriving simultaneously at the database server. Col. 4 Bhargava discloses two computers having the file);
determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a first component of the digital asset (Col. 6 Lines 2-5 Bhargava discloses a modification is made from a first user);
determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a second component of the digital asset (Col. 6 Lines 2-5 Bhargava discloses a modification is made from a second user);
generating, based on determining that the first computing device and the second computing device have modified the digital asset, an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset (Col. 17 Lines 27-32 Bhargava discloses the revisions contain deltas for the files. The deltas are seen as modifiable without affecting other components. Col. 28 Lines 5-9 Bhargava discloses merging the data changes);
synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the first computing device and the modified second component (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “mine” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the server in the server storage working copy);
and synchronizing the digital asset for the second computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the second computing device and the modified first component (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “theirs” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the server in the server storage working copy).
As to claim 10 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein providing, the first computing device and the second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset comprises providing access to the digital asset via a cloud-based application hosted by the one or more servers (Col. 25 Lines 65-67 Bhargava discloses simultaneous changes in two versions of the asset. Col. 3 Lines 50-55 Bhargava discloses two transactions arriving simultaneously at the database server. Col. 4 Bhargava discloses two computers having the file).
As to claim 11 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device causes the first computing device to display an updated version of the digital asset comprising the modified second component (Col. 8 Lines 48-51 Bhargava discloses the user is able to view a display of all revisions for a file. Col. 28 Lines 5-9 Bhargava discloses merging the file modifications. Displaying the merged file modifications is seen as displaying both the updated component and the conflicting component).
As to claim 12 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein:
determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying the first component of the digital asset comprises receiving a first component mapping from the first computing device indicating that the first component has been modified (Col. 6 Lines 2-5 Bhargava discloses a modification is made from a first user);
and determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying the second component of the digital asset comprises receiving a second component mapping from the second computing device indicating that the second component has been modified (Col. 6 Lines 2-5 Bhargava discloses a modification is made from a second user).
As to claim 13 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 12.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the first component mapping and the second component mapping, that a conflict exists for the digital asset (Col. 28 Lines 3-6 Bhargava discloses data conflicts occur when the target for an asset in the working copy and the repository both contain file data modifications);
and synchronizing the digital asset is performed in response to determining that the conflict exists (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “mine” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the user in the local working copy).
As to claim 14 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein the operations further comprise resolving the conflict by merging most recently updated versions of each component into a single version of the digital asset (Col. 19 Lines 35-37 Bhargava discloses the new changes or modifications are stored with the client. Col. 28 Lines 5-9 Bhargava discloses merging the file modifications).
As to claim 15 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 14.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein the operations further comprise identifying the most recently updated versions of each component from the component mapping, the first component mapping, and the second component mapping (Col. 19 Lines 35-37 Bhargava discloses the new changes or modifications are stored with the client. Col. 28 Lines 5-9 Bhargava discloses merging the file modifications).
As to claim 16 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein the operations further comprise storing each of the components of the digital asset as separate files instead of storing the digital asset as a monolithic file (Col. 20 Lines 15-20 Bhargava discloses storing the file separately.
As to claim 17 Bhargava teaches a system comprising:
one or more memory devices comprising a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset (Col. 19 Lines 14-25 Bhargava discloses the manifest stores the information related to the stored asset);
and one or more servers coupled to the one or more memory devices, wherein the one or more servers are configured to cause the system to perform operations comprising (Col. 3 Lines 43-44 Bhargava discloses a database server):
maintaining a component mapping that maps components making up a digital asset (Col. 19 Lines 14-25 Bhargava discloses the manifest stores the information related to the stored asset);
where each of the components comprises a discrete portion of the digital asset that is modifiable without affecting other components of the digital asset (Col. 17 Lines 27-32 Bhargava discloses the revisions contain deltas for the files. The deltas are seen as modifiable without affecting other components. Col. 19 Lines 27-32 Bhargava discloses files contain different versions. Col. 19 Lines 14-25 Bhargava discloses the manifest stores the information related to the stored asset);
providing, to a first computing device and a second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset (Col. 25 Lines 65-67 Bhargava discloses simultaneous changes in two versions of the asset. Col. 3 Lines 50-55 Bhargava discloses two transactions arriving simultaneously at the database server. Col. 4 Bhargava discloses two computers having the file);
determining that the first computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a first component of the digital asset (Col. 6 Lines 2-5 Bhargava discloses a modification is made from a first user);
determining that the second computing device has modified the digital asset by modifying a second component of the digital asset (Col. 6 Lines 2-5 Bhargava discloses a modification is made from a second user);
generating an updated component mapping that maps the modified first component and the modified second component to the digital asset (Col. 28 Lines 5-9 Bhargava discloses merging the data changes);
synchronizing the digital asset for the first computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the first computing device and the modified second component (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “mine” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the server in the server storage working copy);
and synchronizing the digital asset for the second computing device by providing the updated component mapping to the second computing device and the modified first component (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “theirs” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the server in the server storage working copy).
As to claim 18 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 17.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein providing, the first computing device and the second computing device, simultaneous access to the digital asset comprises providing access to the digital asset via a cloud-based application hosted by the one or more servers (Col. 3 Lines 50-55 Bhargava discloses two transactions arriving simultaneously at the database server).
As to claim 19 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 17.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the first component mapping and the second component mapping, that a conflict exists for the digital asset (Col. 28 Lines 3-6 Bhargava discloses data conflicts occur when the target for an asset in the working copy and the repository both contain file data modifications);
and synchronizing the digital asset is performed in response to determining that the conflict exists (Col. 29 Lines 11-17 Bhargava discloses conflict resolution by auto-resolution and using a “mine” which refers to choosing the modifications made by the user in the local working copy).
As to claim 20 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 19.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein the operations further comprise resolving the conflict by merging most recently updated versions of each component into a single version of the digital asset (Col. 19 Lines 35-37 Bhargava discloses the new changes or modifications are stored with the client. Col. 28 Lines 5-9 Bhargava discloses merging the file modifications).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,868,506 (herein as ‘Bhargava’) and further in view of Nielsen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0330849 (herein as ‘Nielsen’).
As to claim 7 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Bhargava teaches wherein: the digital asset comprises a digital image (Col. 7 Lines 5 Bhargava discloses digital assets as images);
Bhargava does not teach but Nielsen teaches and the components comprises image layers (Par. 0033 Nielson discloses the image contain layers).
Bhargava and Nielsen are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, digital asset processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the manifest and digital asset of Bhargava to include the image layers of Nielsen, to allow for improving an installation process (Par. 0025 Nielsen).
As to claim 8 Bhargava teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
Bhargava does not teach but Nielsen teaches wherein: the digital asset comprises a Portable Document Format file; and the components comprises pages (Par. 0117 Nielson discloses the data is PDF).
Bhargava and Nielsen are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, digital asset processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the manifest and digital asset of Bhargava to include the image layers of Nielsen, to allow for improving an installation process (Par. 0025 Nielsen).
Conclusion
12. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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 assista0nce from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.M/ May 31, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights