DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a virtual file system capable of presenting […];” “a local cache to provide […]” “a synchronization module providing …” in claim 1;
“a predictive engine that analyzes…” in claim 10;
“a file policy engine that governs…” in claim 11;
“a file locking module…” in claim 13 [this recites the generic placeholder ‘module’ along with the function ‘file locking’];
“a peer-to-peer data synchronization module that facilitates…” in claim 16
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In particular, the claims contain functional limitations In particular, claims 1, 10, 11, 13, and 16 contain functional limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and dependent claims 2-9, 12, 14-15, 17-19 further limit those claims without themselves providing sufficient structure to preclude interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); however, there is insufficient corresponding structure in the specification for performing the claimed functions, and accordingly the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and further, because the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined and because the specification does not disclose all possible ways of accomplishing the claimed function in sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 10, 11, 13, and 16; and claims 7 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Similarly, the limitation “employing various techniques for expedited storage access, including…” is indefinite, because although certain techniques are expressly recited as being included, the exact metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. [Examiner’s note: in the interest of compact prosecution, and because this claim is written in the alternative, for purposes of art rejection this claim will be treated as though it omitted the indefinite limitations]
The terms “high-speed” and “reliable” in claim 7 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high-speed” and “reliable” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, the terms ‘reliable’ and ‘high-speed’ do not appear to have a sufficient baseline for a person of ordinary skill in the art to differentiate storage which is ‘high-speed’ or ‘reliable’ from storage that is not. [Examiner’s note: in the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be treated as though it merely requires ‘local’ storage for purposes of art rejections]
In regard to claim 1, claim limitations ““a virtual file system capable of presenting […];” “a local cache to provide […]” “a synchronization module providing …” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In particular, these limitations appear to be linked to the computer shown in Fig. 3, and described in paragraphs 0033-0034; however, there does not appear to be a specific algorithm recited for implementing these features [See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).].
Additionally, the computer described in paragraph 0033 is expressly defined, “As used herein, a computer 300 refers to any device described herein.” Accordingly, it is not clear which device is described by the computer. Further, the computer is expressly taught to include “any other component”, and accordingly it is unclear what structure the computer consists of.
Additionally, in paragraph 0034, the processing circuitry is taught to include a software-only embodiment “ The processing circuitry 302 may be implemented as one or more hardware-implemented state machines (e.g., in discrete logic, Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), etc.); programmable logic together with appropriate firmware; one or more stored computer programs, general purpose processors, such as a microprocessor or Digital Signal Processor (DSP), together with appropriate software; or any combination of the above,” which would lack the requisite structure needed to implement the claimed functions.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In regard to claim 10, claim limitation “a predictive engine that analyzes…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In particular, these limitations appear to be linked to the computer shown in Fig. 3, and described in paragraphs 0033-0034; however, there does not appear to be a specific algorithm recited for implementing these features, and further it is unclear what structure the computer comprises, as described for claim 1 above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In regard to claim 11, claim limitation “a file policy engine that governs…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In particular, these limitations appear to be linked to the computer shown in Fig. 3, and described in paragraphs 0033-0034; however, there does not appear to be a specific algorithm recited for implementing these features, and further it is unclear what structure the computer comprises, as described for claim 1 above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In regard to claim 13, claim limitation “a file locking module…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In particular, these limitations appear to be linked to the computer shown in Fig. 3, and described in paragraphs 0033-0034; however, there does not appear to be a specific algorithm recited for implementing these features, and further it is unclear what structure the computer comprises, as described for claim 1 above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In regard to claim 16, claim limitation “a peer-to-peer data synchronization module…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In particular, these limitations appear to be linked to the computer shown in Fig. 3, and described in paragraphs 0033-0034; however, there does not appear to be a specific algorithm recited for implementing these features, and further it is unclear what structure the computer comprises, as described for claim 1 above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 12, 14-15, 17-19, they are further rejected by virtue of their dependency and because they fail to add sufficient structure to implement the claimed inventions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jewell et al. in US Patent Application Publication № 2018/0349408, hereinafter called Jewell.
In regard to claim 1, Jewell teaches a system for providing a filesystem on a local computer, the system comprising:
a metainformation database (“The instructions may be further executable to build a selective synchronization model including metadata for the selected objects and additional container objects” paragraph 0015);
a virtual file system capable of presenting the metainformation database as a standard file system (“The instructions are further executable to store local peers of the selected objects in a local cache in a local file system and synchronize changes to the selected objects at the content management system to the local peers of the selected objects.” Paragraph 0013, wherein “The managed folders at content management
server 102 may be "virtual" folders that do not correspond to actual file directory paths in a file system of data store 110.” Paragraph 0036; further, “The system enables the "seamless" use of tools of choice for editing files by synchronizing changes to files or folders in the local cache regardless of the application that made the changes.” Paragraph 0030);
a local cache to provide file content for reading and writing (“In embodiments as presented herein, an architecture is provided where the user's client device maintains a local cache and such editing of files can be provided separately from a content management server for an enterprise containing the same files” paragraph 0031, “A user may access and edit a local copy of content through an editing application ( e.g., editing application 156a, 156b ), change the structure of the cache by adding/ removing folders or take other actions that change the cache.” Paragraph 0065);
and a synchronization module providing bidirectional synchronization between metadata in the metainformation database and file content between one or more network shares and the local computer (“The synchronization manager determines that the remote peer object and local peer object are out of sync based on a comparison of the remote virtual model and the local virtual model synchronizes. The synchronization manager can synchronize changes from the local cache to the content management system to update the remote peer object or changes from the content management system to update the local peer object.” Paragraph 0010; “Synchronization can be bi-directional” paragraph 0106).
In regard to claim 2, Jewell further teaches that the metainformation database is populated during an initial scan of one or more network shares (“The synchronization manager receives an input, via the interface, the input selecting objects for synchronization from the set of objects. The synchronization manager stores local peers of the selected objects in a local cache in a local file system and synchronizes changes to the selected objects at the content management system to the local peers of the selected objects.” Paragraph 0009).
In regard to claim 3, Jewell further teaches that the metainformation database stores diverse file and folder metadata (i.e. for many different files and folders, “According to one embodiment, the set of objects comprises files and folders.” Paragraph 0011; alternatively or additionally, associated with multiple users, as in paragraph 0050).
In regard to claim 4, Jewell further teaches that updates to the metainformation database are bidirectionally synchronized with the network share (“The synchronization manager determines that the remote peer object and local peer object are out of sync based on a comparison of the remote virtual model and the local virtual model synchronizes. The synchronization manager can synchronize changes from the local cache to the content management system to update the remote peer object or changes from the content management system to update the local peer object.” Paragraph 0010).
In regard to claim 5, Jewell further teaches that the virtual file system is capable of presenting the metainformation database as a standard file system without necessitating access to the one or more network shares (“Those file system paths directly access a local file cache, so that opening and saving of previously downloaded files can be fast and reliable.” Paragraph 0030; further, “By divorcing the editing and the synchronization processes through the use of the local cache, a seamless and speedy way to allow a user to access files that are synchronized with a server is provided. By providing a seamless way for a user to be able to access files for editing using a local cache instead of having the user edit them on a content management server located in a cloud and connected via an Internet connection, a user is not always required to have Internet connectivity and editing of files can be accomplished in speedier manner.” Paragraph 0032).
In regard to claim 6, Jewell further teaches that the virtual file system is capable of presenting the metainformation database as a standard file system through the local cache (“The instructions are further executable to store local peers of the selected objects in a local cache in a local file system and synchronize changes to the selected objects at the content management system to the local peers of the selected objects.” Paragraph 0013, wherein “The managed folders at content management
server 102 may be "virtual" folders that do not correspond to actual file directory paths in a file system of data store 110.” Paragraph 0036; further, “The system enables the "seamless" use of tools of choice for editing files by synchronizing changes to files or folders in the local cache regardless of the application that made the changes.” Paragraph 0030).
In regard to claim 7, Jewell further teaches that the local cache uses local, high-speed, and reliable storage to provide file content for reading and writing (“Those file system paths directly access a local file cache, so that opening and saving of previously downloaded files can be fast and reliable.” Paragraph 0030).
In regard to claim 8, Jewell further teaches that the synchronization module provides bidirectional synchronization using differential syncing (i.e. by detecting differences, “The synchronization manager determines that the remote peer object and local peer object are out of sync based on a comparison of the remote virtual model and the local virtual model synchronizes. The synchronization manager can synchronize changes from the local cache to the content management system to update the remote peer object or changes from the content management system to update the local peer object.” Paragraph 0010”).
In regard to claim 9, Jewell further teaches that the synchronization module provides algorithms for one or more of: error detection (“If the update is not successful, synchronization manager 200 can implement error handling routines.” Paragraph 0111), recovery, and optimizing data transfer based on capabilities of the one or more network shares.
In regard to claim 10, Jewell further teaches: a predictive engine that analyzes file access patterns to proactively preload file content into the local cache from the one or more network shares (i.e. before it is accessed at the local cache, “local peer File 1 in synchronization cache 162a of client device 150a may be out of date because the remote peer File 1 has been edited/replaced with a new version. Content management module 104 can notify synchronization manager 160a of a change to remote peer File 1 and synchronization manager 160a can download the updated File 1 ( or changes to File 1). The local peer File 1 in cache 162a can be updated by replacing File 1 with the most recently downloaded version, modifying File 1 or otherwise updating the local peer File 1 to synchronize the locally cached File 1 with the server.” Paragraph 0072).
In regard to claim 11, Jewell further teaches: a file policy engine that governs management of the local cache (“The synchronization manager maintains synchronization management information for accessed items.” Paragraph 0064).
In regard to claim 12, Jewell further teaches that the file policy engine provides one of more of: defining cache size, handling older files, caching criteria (i.e. selection of what to cache, “FIG. 2A illustrates, for example, a user interface presented by a synchronization manager (e.g., synchronization manager 160a on client device 150a) that allows a user to select whether to "sync everything" (all files and folders associated with the user by content management module 104) or "select items to sync."” Paragraph 0051), and retention policies.
In regard to claim 13, Jewell further teaches: a file locking module (“For convenience, content management module 104 may provide a locking mechanism so that a user can lock a file.” Paragraph 0074).
In regard to claim 14, Jewell further teaches that the file locking module extends file locking to the one or more network shares (“Synchronization managers 160a, 160b that are managing a peer local copy of a file that is locked may be sent a notification so that the respective user can be notified that another user is editing the file” paragraph 0074).
In regard to claim 15, Jewell further teaches that the file locking module prevents concurrent write access when a file is opened locally (“For convenience, content management module 104 may provide a locking mechanism so that a user can lock a file. Synchronization managers 160a, 160b that are managing a peer local copy of a file that is locked may be sent a notification so that the respective user can be notified that another user is editing the file. Such a scheme can help avoid conflicts that occur when multiple users update local peer copies of a file simultaneously” paragraph 0074).
In regard to claim 16, Jewell further teaches: a peer-to-peer data synchronization module that facilitates one or more of: metadata and file content exchange among users with access to the same folder without network share access (“In particular, a user may attempt to access managed files in a variety of ways, including through the previously discussed web based interface or directly through an editing application, etc., though access to content may be restricted based on user credentials (e.g., usemame and password) and sharing permissions to provide both private storage (single user) and shared access to files” paragraph 0046).
In regard to claim 17, Jewell further teaches that when a user saves a file, the file is stored in the local cache (“As the user makes changes to the file, such changes can be saved to the local copy of the file (the local peer file) stored in local cache.” Paragraph 0065), enabling parallel write requests to the one or more network shares (“In some implementations, the "local cache" may be stored in a directory that is also synchronized to another system (for example another cloud-based file store system). The synchronization manager may, therefore, have the effect of synchronizing a file between the client and multiple servers and potentially multiple cloud-based services.” Paragraph 0076).
In regard to claim 18, Jewell further teaches that network server performance can be improved by one or more of:
pre-populating file meta-information into the metainformation database to fulfill all meta-information requests from local storage;
segregating file read/write operations from network share data transfer (“In embodiments as presented herein, an architecture is provided where the user's client device maintains a local cache and such editing of files can be provided separately from a content management server for an enterprise containing the same files.” Paragraph 0031; further, editing and synchronization are taught to be ‘divorced’, paragraph 0032), ensuring users experience local disk IO performance (i.e. local accesses are served from local disk, which inherently has the performance of the local disk, i.e. itself), while file movement operations occur in the background without perceptible performance degradation (i.e. seamless, “The system enables the "seamless" use of tools of choice for editing files by synchronizing changes to files or folders in the local cache regardless of the application that made the changes. The system ensures that the user can always save files, and works with most existing applications installed on a client device. At the same time, the system preserves key capabilities of the content management server system. Generally, the system uses a seamless synchronization technique for uploading and downloading files.” Paragraph 0030, wherein “As described in detail below, client applications can edit files using standard file system paths to a local hard disk or roaming profile. Those file system paths directly access a local file cache, so that opening and saving of previously downloaded files can be fast and reliable. The local file system is monitored so that the system can determine when a file or folder content or metadata has been modified and should be uploaded to the content management server. The modified content and metadata can be uploaded in the background.” Paragraph 0030);
employing a robust synchronization engine to optimize write and read access to files, leveraging techniques such as block read/write, recovery of partially uploaded/downloaded files, and peer-to-peer optimization;
predicting user demand and pre-caching frequently accessed data using a predictive analysis module;
dynamically distributing incoming requests across server nodes using a load balancing module;
implementing error recovery mechanisms without requiring file retransfer (“. If the update is not successful, synchronization manager 200 can implement error handling routines.” Paragraph 0111, wherein “In some cases, an error handler may simply mark a file as being subject to an error (e.g., with an overlay on a file icon for the file).” Paragraph 0114);
optimizing access to local files and folders' metadata (i.e. by storing data with the metadata, “The local file system is monitored so that the system can determine when a file or folder content or metadata has been modified and should be uploaded to the content management server.” Paragraph 0030);
and employing various techniques for expedited storage access, including multi-threaded access and partial file access.
In regard to claim 19, Jewell further teaches that the User Experience (UX) is decoupled from the actual file storage (i.e. does not perform the storage, “In one embodiment, an application in the client device system tray on the task bar provides an unobtrusive user interface (UI) for communicating with the user as necessary, such as to report on the status of pending operations.” Paragraph 0030; further, “Furthermore, synchronization manager 200, in one embodiment, may be a non-intercepting synchronization manager that does not intercept calls between editing applications and the file system, but instead, monitors the file system for changes.” Paragraph 0077).
In regard to claim 20, Jewell teaches a method for providing a filesystem on a local computer, the method comprising:
populating a metainformation database during an initial scan of one or more network shares (“The synchronization manager receives an input, via the interface, the input selecting objects for synchronization from the set of objects. The synchronization manager stores local peers of the selected objects in a local cache in a local file system and synchronizes changes to the selected objects at the content management system to the local peers of the selected objects.” Paragraph 0009);
presenting a virtual file system as a standard file system without necessitating access to the one or more network shares (“Those file system paths directly access a local file cache, so that opening and saving of previously downloaded files can be fast and reliable.” Paragraph 0030; further, “By divorcing the editing and the synchronization processes through the use of the local cache, a seamless and speedy way to allow a user to access files that are synchronized with a server is provided. By providing a seamless way for a user to be able to access files for editing using a local cache instead of having the user edit them on a content management server located in a cloud and connected via an Internet connection, a user is not always required to have Internet connectivity and editing of files can be accomplished in speedier manner.” Paragraph 0032);
using a local cache to provide file content for reading and writing (“In embodiments as presented herein, an architecture is provided where the user's client device maintains a local cache and such editing of files can be provided separately from a content management server for an enterprise containing the same files” paragraph 0031, “A user may access and edit a local copy of content through an editing application ( e.g., editing application 156a, 156b ), change the structure of the cache by adding/ removing folders or take other actions that change the cache.” Paragraph 0065);
and providing bidirectional synchronization between metadata in the metainformation database and file content between one or more network shares and the local computer using a synchronization module (“The synchronization manager determines that the remote peer object and local peer object are out of sync based on a comparison of the remote virtual model and the local virtual model synchronizes. The synchronization manager can synchronize changes from the local cache to the content management system to update the remote peer object or changes from the content management system to update the local peer object.” Paragraph 0010; “Synchronization can be bi-directional” paragraph 0106).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication № 2012/0072596 teaches a system which allows for locking in a synchronized distributed file system
US Patent Application Publication № 2006/0253501 teaches a system which allows for local file systems to be synchronized with remote systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Z Ganger whose telephone number is (571)272-0270. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 7:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AJAY M BHATIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156