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 .
Priority
The instant application claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/514,221 filed June 2, 2017, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELECTIVE SYNCHRONIZATION.”
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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent numbers 12353361, 11301431 and 11803516. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they basically claim the same claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prakash (US
Pub. 2014/0281850, hereinafter "Prakash") in view of Mari (US Pub. 20150052144).
Regarding claim 1, Prakash discloses a system comprising: a processor; a data store coupled to the processor; a synchronization manager running on the processor, wherein the synchronization manager is configured to: maintain on the data store a local content hierarchy, wherein at least a portion of the local content hierarchy comprises local objects that are paired with corresponding objects in a remote content navigation hierarchy on a remote content management system (Fig. 4, ¶ [0053], a file system having local content hierarchy);
maintain a synchronization management database on the data store, wherein the synchronization management database stores management data identifying a selected synched set of the objects in the local content hierarchy for synchronization with the corresponding objects in the remote content navigation hierarchy (¶ 0114]; data will be continuously synchronized); and
synchronize changes to the synched set of objects with corresponding objects in the remote content management system (¶ [0115]).
Prakash discloses local synchronization of data, but Prakash does not explicitly disclose local objects; however, Mari discloses local object synchronization (¶ [0029] (objects stored as records in a database in the cloud can be replicated and synchronized locally for off-line access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mari into Prakash to change data object at the location of the database used for storage of the application independent objects.
Regarding claim 2, Prakash in view of Mari discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the synchronization manager is configured to: traverse the remote content navigation hierarchy to identify a set of additional container objects above each selected object in the remote content navigation hierarchy (Prakash, ¶ [0155]; Mari, ¶ [0030], object navigator); and create additional local objects corresponding to the additional container objects in the local content hierarchy, wherein the additional local objects are arranged in the local content hierarchy (Mari, ¶ [0125]).
Regarding claim 3, Prakash in view of Mari discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the synchronization manager is configured to: build a selective synchronization model including metadata for the selected objects and additional container objects; receive a notification from the content management system of an event associated with at least one object in the content navigation hierarchy; and filter the notification based on the selective synchronization model (Mari, ¶ [0125], to assign additional meta-information to external file).
Regarding claim 4, Prakash in view of Mari discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the set of additional container objects comprises files and folders (Mari, ¶ [0125]).
Regarding claim 5, Prakash in view of Mari discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an interface adapted to allow a user to independently select multiple objects from different levels of the content navigation hierarchy (Mari, ¶ [0030], object navigator).
Regarding claim 6, Prakash in view of Mari discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an interface is adapted to allow a user to independently select multiple objects from the same level of the content navigation hierarchy (Mari, ¶ [0029], object level).
Regarding claim 7, Prakash in view of Mari discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an interface that combines hierarchy data from the content management system with user selections (¶ [0037].
Regarding claim 8, Prakash in view of Mari discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising instructions executable to: monitor for events in a local cache (Prakash, ¶ [0102]; monitoring local cache);
in response to an event in the local cache, determine that a file has been added to the local cache (¶ [1040]; Mari, ¶ [0103]);
upload the file to the content management system (¶ [1040]);
receive a notification from the content management system to create the file in the local cache (¶ [1040]);
determine that the file already exists in the local cache (¶ [1040]); and
based on determining that the file already exists in the local cache, select the file for synchronization (¶ [1040]).
Regarding claim 9, Prakash in view of Mari discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising controls to allow a user to independently select multiple objects as hard sync selections (¶ [0100]).
Regarding claim 10, Prakash in view of Mari discloses the system of claim 9, further comprising instructions executable by the processor to automatically select, as soft sync selections, a parent container object of a hard sync selected object (Prakash, ¶ [0145].
Regarding claims 11-20, see discussion of claims 1-10 above for the same reason of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights