Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application filed 06/27/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 08/14/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent Number(s) 12,395,555 B2; 11,831,712 B2; 10,979,501 B2; 10,425,477 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner previously indicated the claims appeared to be in condition for allowance. However, upon further consideration and search, the Examiner identified issues under 35 USC 112(b), as well as additional prior art. Therefore, in view of the newly identified prior art and further consideration, rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 103 are made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6-7, 13, 16-20 are 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.
Claim 6 recites “the particular synchronization protocol” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2, from which claim 6 depends, recites “a particular file synchronization protocol.” It is unclear whether “the particular synchronization protocol” of claim 6 refers to “the particular file synchronization protocol” of claim 2 or different synchronization protocol. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites “a representation of a state that identifies the file date associated with the client device” in lines 2-3. The claim relates to synchronization of “file data” and applicant’s specification describes metadata that identifies a state of file data (see [0090]). It is unclear what is meant by “file date.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites “the particular synchronization protocol” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, from which claim 13 depends, recites “a particular file synchronization protocol.” It is unclear whether “the particular synchronization protocol” of claim 13 refers to “the particular file synchronization protocol” of claim 9 or a different synchronization protocol. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites “the data transport protocol” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14, from which claim 16 depends, recites “at least one data transport protocol”, “a first data transport protocol,” and “a second data transport protocol.” It is unclear which protocol “the data transport protocol” of claim 16 refers to. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claims 17 recites “the processing device” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14, from which claim 17 depends, recites “a client device” but it does not recite a “processing device.” It is unclear whether “the processing device” refers to the “client device” or another device. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claims 18 recites “the other processing device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14, from which claim 18 depends, recites “a client device” but it does not recite a “other processing device.” It is unclear whether the “other processing device” refers to the “client device” or another device. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding claim 19; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 18.
Regarding claim 20; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2002/0174180 A1) in view of Sun et al. (CN 102307210A).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a client device, a request for synchronization of file data ([0025],[0040]: The synchronization process is initiated by a client SA when it makes a sync poll call (e.g. request) to the server, passing it the client sync index (CSI) identifying its current known state of the account. [0070]: the client SA requests server synchronization data (SSD).);
generating a response to the request for synchronization of the file data, wherein the response comprises: identification of particular file data for synchronization ([0039]-[0040]: server sync index (SSI) value. Server synchronization file system (SFS) returns (e.g. response) the new higher SSI along with the server metadata information the client needs to transition its account from its current state to the server's current state. [0072]-[0075]: The SSD contains: Server's current SSI; SIDs of the directories with changes; SIDs of the child directory and child file items for each changed directory. The client SA updates the client's directory and metadata to match the server state);
transmitting the response to the client device ([0091]: . Server 105 then sends the SSD to client 130 (in response to a request for the SSD by the client), informing the client of the pertinent changes);
receiving a request from the client device for the particular file data ([0092]: client 130 can determine what changes have been made to the account on server 105… . Client 130 then requests the appropriate file from server 105); and
causing the particular file data to be transmitted to the client device ([0094], [0106]: Once client 130 has downloaded all the pertinent changes from server 105, client 130 can send all the pertinent changes made on client 130 to server 105).
However, Brown does not disclose instructions for accessing the particular file data including at least one uniform resource identifier for access to the particular file data, and
instructions indicating at least one data transport protocol to utilize to obtain the particular file data when accessed using the uniform resource identifier, wherein the instructions comprise an instruction to obtain first file data using a first data transport protocol, and an instruction to obtain second file data using a second data transport protocol that is different from the first data transport protocol.
In an analogous art, Sun discloses instructions for accessing the particular file data including at least one uniform resource identifier for access to the particular file data (pg. 2, lines 41-43: submit the collection of download sources to the file download component of the client, which downloads from multiple download sources at the same time. Pg. 4, line 14: Download URL: the specific download link of the download source),instructions indicating at least one data transport protocol to utilize to obtain the particular file data when accessed using the uniform resource identifier (pg. 8, lines 12-14: The download link capture component 12 monitors the clipboard of the client's local computer, and when a character string beginning with ftp, http, https (or a custom protocol link header) appears in the clipboard. The local system starts the download client DX, creates a new download task and starts downloading), wherein the instructions comprise an instruction to obtain first file data using a first data transport protocol, and an instruction to obtain second file data using a second data transport protocol that is different from the first data transport protocol (pg. 9, 38-40: when the user downloads, the client obtains the information of each download source from the platform's metadata, obtains fragments of the file from different download sources based on different protocols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown to include “instructions for accessing the particular file data including at least one uniform resource identifier for access to the particular file data, and instructions indicating at least one data transport protocol to utilize to obtain the particular file data when accessed using the uniform resource identifier, wherein the instructions comprise an instruction to obtain first file data using a first data transport protocol, and an instruction to obtain second file data using a second data transport protocol that is different from the first data transport protocol” taught by Sun.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to improve download efficiency and increase download speed of the system and improving system robustness (Sun, pg. 5, lines 25-27, 32-34).
Regarding claim 3, Brown-Sun discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first data transport protocol is one of HTTP, HTTP/S, FTP, SMTP, FSP and SFTP (Sun, pg. 2, 50-51: The file download component supports multiple protocol downloads including P2P, FTP, HTPP, and custom many-to-one download protocol downloads). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Brown-Sun discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving an indication that one or more files of the file data are synchronized with the client device, wherein the indication comprises updated metadata (Brown, [0064]: The client SA synchronizes with the server by synchronizing the client metadata with the server metadata. [0075]-[0076]: With the SSD, the client SA updates the client's directory and metadata to match the server state).
Regarding claims 8 and 14; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 16; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claims 11 and 17; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Sun, as applied to claim 1, in further view of McCarthy (US 2009/0228606 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Brown-Sun discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Brown-Sun does not disclose wherein the request for synchronization comprises identification that the request is generated using a particular file synchronization protocol, wherein the response further comprises identification that the response is generated using the particular file synchronization protocol, and wherein the first data transport protocol is different from the particular file synchronization protocol.
In an analogous art, McCarthy discloses wherein the request for synchronization comprises identification that the request is generated using a particular file synchronization protocol ([0069]: The synchronization protocol is simpler than conventional protocols, such as Synchronization Markup Language (SyncML). The set of commands available for the synchronization protocol is simple and yet extensible. [0075]: the processor 160 can operate the sync protocol 140 to receive a request from the client devices 110 to initiate a sync session), wherein the response further comprises identification that the response is generated using the particular file synchronization protocol, and wherein the first data transport protocol is different from the particular file synchronization protocol ([0097]: The transport protocol 130 manages the exchange of messages between the server 120 and client device 110. The transport protocol 130 can include HTTP transport or other suitable transports, such as Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The transport protocol 130 layer handles authentication, and thus the synchronization protocol 140 (e.g. different protocol) does not need to handle security/authentication processing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown-Sun to “wherein the request for synchronization comprises identification that the request is generated using a particular file synchronization protocol, wherein the response further comprises identification that the response is generated using the particular file synchronization protocol, and wherein the first data transport protocol is different from the particular file synchronization protocol” taught by McCarthy.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to identify and process messages according to the applicable synchronization protocol while maintaining the synchronization protocol to operate separately from the transport protocol (McCarthy, [0095], [0097]).
Regarding claim 6, Brown-Sun-McCarthy discloses the method according to claim 2.
Brown discloses further comprising establishing, with the client device, a connection for the particular synchronization protocol, usable to identify file data to synchronize with the client device (Brown, [0026],[0071]-[0079]: the client SA communicates with the server SFS using a proprietary protocol tunneled within the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP). With the SSD, the client SA updates the client's directory and metadata to match the server state. The client SA compares the SSD passed back from the server SFS to its CSD to determine how the client needs to be updated. The client SA only has to examine the directories that have been identified as having changes in the SSD.
However, Brown-Sun does not disclose wherein the particular synchronization protocol interfaces with a plurality of data transport protocols and determine which data transport protocol of the plurality of data transport protocols is to be used to download the particular file data.
In an analogous art, McCarthy discloses wherein the particular synchronization protocol interfaces with a plurality of data transport protocols and determine which data transport protocol of the plurality of data transport protocols is to be used to download the particular file data ([0067], The synchronization protocol can enable these data transport using hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) transport protocol or other similar transport protocols which are capable of exchanging synchronization protocol messages between the device and server. [0097]: The transport protocol 130 can include HTTP transport or other suitable transports, such as Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown-Sun to include wherein the particular synchronization protocol interfaces with a plurality of data transport protocols and determine which data transport protocol of the plurality of data transport protocols is to be used to download the particular file data” taught by McCarthy.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to identify and process messages according to the applicable synchronization protocol while maintaining the synchronization protocol to operate separately from the transport protocol (McCarthy, [0095], [0097]).
Regarding claims 9 and 15; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claims 13 and 19; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 5, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Sun, as applied to claim 4, in further view of Clark et al. (US 2009/0083441 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Brown-Sun discloses the method according to claim 4, instructions for accessing the additional file data including at least one additional uniform resource identifier for access to the additional file data (Sun, pg. 2, lines 41-43: submit the collection of download sources to the file download component of the client, which downloads from multiple download sources at the same time. Pg. 4, line 14: Download URL: the specific download link of the download source).
However, Brown-Sun does not disclose generating, using the updated metadata, a second response, wherein the second response comprises: identification of additional file data for synchronization, , and instructions indicating at least one data transport protocol to utilize to obtain the additional file data when accessed using the additional uniform resource identifier; and transmitting the second response to the client device.
In an analogous art, Clark discloses generating, using the updated metadata, a second response, wherein the second response comprises: identification of additional file data for synchronization ([0040]: As a result of the exchange with Web service endpoint 210, knowledge 212 is updated to knowledge 212′ (e.g. updated metadata). [0113]: GetKnowledge defines information relevant to the service that allows the service to identify the target data to be synchronized), and instructions indicating at least one data transport protocol to utilize to obtain the additional file data when accessed using the additional uniform resource identifier ([0113]-[0114]: Web service providers use the URI to fully resolve the logical set of items being synchronized . The GetKnowledgeResponse message is the response to from the Web service to the GetKnowledge message, containing a snapshot of the knowledge for the service); and transmitting the second response to the client device ([0121]: The RequestChangesResponse message is the response to RequestChanges, containing a change batch with all of the changes within the batch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown-Sun to “generating, using the updated metadata, a second response, wherein the second response comprises: identification of additional file data for synchronization, , and instructions indicating at least one data transport protocol to utilize to obtain the additional file data when accessed using the additional uniform resource identifier; and transmitting the second response to the client device” taught by Clark.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled efficient exchange of updated knowledge between connected devices, thereby improving synchronization efficiency by transmitting only the minimum data needed by a node (Clark, [0004],[0042],[0051]).
Regarding claims 12 and 18; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Claims 7, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Sun, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Giampaolo et al. (US 2012/0185434 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Brown-Sun discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Brown-Sun does not disclose wherein the request includes metadata including a representation of a state that identifies the file date associated with the client device, and wherein the representation is a compact representation.
In an analogous art, Giampaolo discloses wherein the request includes metadata including a representation of a state that identifies the file date associated with the client device, and wherein the representation is a compact representation ([0007]: receiving a request from the first device for one or more data items corresponding to one or more respective changes in the list of changes; and sending the requested data items. The knowledge vector has a compact representation identifying the data item and latest change identifier known to the first device. [0025]: wherein the request includes metadata including a representation of a state that identifies the file date associated with the client device, and wherein the representation is a compact representation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown-Sun to “wherein the request includes metadata including a representation of a state that identifies the file date associated with the client device, and wherein the representation is a compact representation” taught by Giampaolo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to reduce the amount of synchronization information transmitted using a compact representation, therefore reducing network traffic during synchronization (Giampaolo, [0025]).
Regarding claim 20; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants disclosure.
Cao et al., US 2014/0075326 A1: Method and Apparatus for Uploading a File.
Haager et al., US 2015/0310219 A1: Systems and Methods for Security Hardening of Data in Transit and at Rest via Segmentation, Shuffling and Multi-Key Encryption.
Kirigin et al., US 2014/0067929 A1: Uploading one or more Files from a Shared File Link.
Moon US 2015/0227549 A1: Device and Method for Managing Files.
Dhamdhere et al., US 2016/0352833 A1: Method and System for Selecting a Transport Mechanism and a Storage Process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C TURRIATE GASTULO whose telephone number is (571)272-6707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am-4 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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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.
/J.C.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2454
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights