Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 19/255,304, filed on 11/18/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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 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.
This application is a CON of 17/306,548 filed 05/03/2021 is now US PAT 12373387 17/306,548 is a CON of 16/361,641 filed 03/22/2019 is now US PAT 11003622 16/361,641 is a CON of 16/017,348 filed 06/25/2018 is now US PAT 10289607 16/017,348 is a CON of 14/860,289 09/21/2015 PAT 10067942
14/860,289 is a CON of 12/267,852 filed 11/10/2008 is now US PAT 9143561
12/267,852 has PRO 60/986,896 filed 11/09/2007
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 6/30/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 60/986,896 filed 11/09/2007
under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
(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 19, is depend from claim 19 itself, it appears may be typo error, for compact prosecution, examiner assumed, treated claim 19 depend from claim 18 in the office action.
Appropriate correction required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,12,18, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
claim 1,12,18, . A system comprising:
“a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to: receive, over a network, a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user,
wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device,
the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file;
determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user; and store the copy of the first file on the server system;
automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example copy of the first file,, determine , automatically transfer , resuming , receiving the copy in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mere copy files, automatically transfer files and like
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of copy of the first file,, determine , automatically transfer , resuming , receiving the copy, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 1-2, para 0030-0039, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition fig 1-2, para 0030-0039 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,13, further elaborates The system of claim 1, “wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
store the copy of the first file to a memory device associated with the server system, wherein the copy of the first file is stored on the memory device associated with the server system responsive to determining that the server system is not in communication with the second client device; and
automatically transfer the copy of the first file to the second client device to replace the older version of the first file stored on the second client device with the copy of the first file, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3,15,19, further elaborates The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
“receive, from the first client device, first metadata associated with the version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file,
the first metadata being assigned a first priority greater than a second priority assigned to the copy of the first file; and
automatically transfer, based on the first priority being greater than the second priority, the first metadata to the second client device such that the first metadata is transferred to the second client device prior to the copy of the first file being transferred to the second client device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4,16,20, further elaborates The system of claim 3, “wherein at least one of the server system or the first client device comprises a priority assignment configuration to assign greater priority to metadata associated with files than priority assigned to the files such that at least one of the server system or the first client device assigns the first priority to the first metadata and the second priority to the copy of the first file based on the priority assignment configuration”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5, further elaborates The system of claim 3, “wherein availability of the version of the first file is presented at the second client device based on the first metadata”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6, further elaborates The system of claim 1, “wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive a copy of a second file from the second client device associated with the user, wherein the copy of the second file is automatically received from the second client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the second file stored on the second client device, the copy of the second file being a version of the second file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the second file;
determine that the server system is in communication with the first client device associated with the user; and
automatically transfer the copy of the second file to the first client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the second file stored on the first client device, responsive to (i) determining that the server system is in communication with the first client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the second client device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7, further elaborates The system of claim 1, “wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
periodically perform a pull request, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to (i) the pull request and (ii) the user modifying the content of the first file stored on the first client device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8, further elaborates The system of claim 1, “wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to (i) a push request of the first client device and (ii) the user modifying the content of the first file stored on the first client device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9, further elaborates The system of claim 1, “wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from a first application at the first client device, and wherein the first application comprises a runtime environment for one or more mobile-agent objects”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 10, further elaborates The system of claim 9, “wherein the first application is configured to create a first mobile object, and wherein the first mobile object is configured to create a proxy object at the server system”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11, further elaborates The system of claim 10, “wherein the first mobile object is configured to provide the copy of the first file to the proxy object, and wherein the proxy object is configured to store the copy of the first file on a memory device associated with the server system”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 14, further elaborates The method of claim 12, “further comprising: storing, by the server system, the copy of the first file to a memory device associated with the server system, wherein the copy of the first file is stored on the memory device associated with the server system responsive to initially determining that the server system is not in communication with the second client device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 17, further elaborates The method of claim 12, “wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from a first application at the first client device, wherein the first application comprises a runtime environment for one or more mobile-agent objects, and wherein the first application is configured to create a first mobile object, and the first mobile object is configured to create a proxy object at the server system and to provide the copy of the first file to the proxy object”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim1-20 of US Application No. 19/255,304 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,373,387
This is a statutory double patenting rejection
System Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/255,304 are exactly same as method claims 1-20 issued US Pat. 12,373,387 as shown in the below table.
Instant US application: 19/255,304
US Patent No. 12,373,387
Claim 1,12,18,
a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, over a network, a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user,
wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device,
the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file;
determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user; and
store the copy of the first file on the server system;
automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device.
Claim 2,13. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
store the copy of the first file to a memory device associated with the server system, wherein the copy of the first file is stored on the memory device associated with the server system responsive to determining that the server system is not in communication with the second client device; and
automatically transfer the copy of the first file to the second client device to replace the older version of the first file stored on the second client device with the copy of the first file, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device
Claim 3,15,19. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, from the first client device, first metadata associated with the version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file,
the first metadata being assigned a first priority greater than a second priority assigned to the copy of the first file; and
automatically transfer, based on the first priority being greater than the second priority, the first metadata to the second client device such that the first metadata is transferred to the second client device prior to the copy of the first file being transferred to the second client device.
Claim 4,16,20. The system of claim 3, wherein at least one of the server system or the first client device comprises a priority assignment configuration to assign greater priority to metadata associated with files than priority assigned to the files such that at least one of the server system or the first client device assigns the first priority to the first metadata and the second priority to the copy of the first file based on the priority assignment configuration
Claim 5. The system of claim 3, wherein availability of the version of the first file is presented at the second client device based on the first metadata
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive a copy of a second file from the second client device associated with the user, wherein the copy of the second file is automatically received from the second client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the second file stored on the second client device, the copy of the second file being a version of the second file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the second file;
determine that the server system is in communication with the first client device associated with the user; and
automatically transfer the copy of the second file to the first client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the second file stored on the first client device, responsive to (i) determining that the server system is in communication with the first client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the second client device.
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
periodically perform a pull request, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to (i) the pull request and (ii) the user modifying the content of the first file stored on the first client device
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to (i) a push request of the first client device and (ii) the user modifying the content of the first file stored on the first client device.
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from a first application at the first client device, and wherein the first application comprises a runtime environment for one or more mobile-agent objects
Claim 10. The system of claim 9, wherein the first application is configured to create a first mobile object, and wherein the first mobile object is configured to create a proxy object at the server system
Claim 11. The system of claim 10, wherein the first mobile object is configured to provide the copy of the first file to the proxy object, and wherein the proxy object is configured to store the copy of the first file on a memory device associated with the server system
Claim 17. The method of claim 12, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from a first application at the first client device, wherein the first application comprises a runtime environment for one or more mobile-agent objects, and wherein the first application is configured to create a first mobile object, and the first mobile object is configured to create a proxy object at the server system and to provide the copy of the first file to the proxy object.
Claim 1,12,18, A system comprising:
a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, over a network, a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user,
wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device,
the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file;
determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user; and
store the copy of the first file on the server system;
automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device.
Claim 2, he system of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
store the copy of the first file to a memory device associated with the server system, wherein the copy of the first file is stored on the memory device associated with the server system responsive to determining that the server system is not in communication with the second client device; and
automatically transfer the copy of the first file to the second client device to replace the older version of the first file stored on the second client device with the copy of the first file, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device.
Claim 3, The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, from the first client device, first metadata associated with the version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file, the first metadata being assigned a first priority greater than a second priority assigned to the copy of the first file; and
automatically transfer, based on the first priority being greater than the second priority, the first metadata to the second client device such that the first metadata is transferred to the second client device prior to the copy of the first file being transferred to the second client device.
Claim 4. The system of claim 3, wherein at least one of the server system or the first client device comprises a priority assignment configuration to assign greater priority to metadata associated with files than priority assigned to the files such that at least one of the server system or the first client device assigns the first priority to the first metadata and the second priority to the copy of the first file based on the priority assignment configuration
Claim 5. The system of claim 3, wherein availability of the version of the first file is presented at the second client device based on the first metadata
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive a copy of a second file from the second client device associated with the user, wherein the copy of the second file is automatically received from the second client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the second file stored on the second client device, the copy of the second file being a version of the second file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the second file;
determine that the server system is in communication with the first client device associated with the user; and
automatically transfer the copy of the second file to the first client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the second file stored on the first client device, responsive to (i) determining that the server system is in communication with the first client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the second client device.
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to:
periodically perform a pull request, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to (i) the pull request and (ii) the user modifying the content of the first file stored on the first client device
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to (i) a push request of the first client device and (ii) the user modifying the content of the first file stored on the first client device
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from a first application at the first client device, and wherein the first application comprises a runtime environment for one or more mobile-agent objects
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the first application is configured to create a first mobile object, and wherein the first mobile object is configured to create a proxy object at the server system
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the first mobile object is configured to provide the copy of the first file to the proxy object, and wherein the proxy object is configured to store the copy of the first file on a memory device associated with the server system
Claim 17. The method of claim 12, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from a first application at the first client device, wherein the first application comprises a runtime environment for one or more mobile-agent objects, and wherein the first application is configured to create a first mobile object, and the first mobile object is configured to create a proxy object at the server system and to provide the copy of the first file to the proxy object
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/255,304 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,003,622. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/255,304
US Patent No. 11,003,622
Claim 1,12,18,
a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, over a network, a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user,
wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device,
the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file;
determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user; and
store the copy of the first file on the server system;
automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device.
Claim 1,11,16, A system comprising:
a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, over a network, a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user,
wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device,
the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file;
store the copy of the first file on the server system;
receive, from the first client device, first metadata associated with the version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file, the first metadata being assigned a first priority greater than a second priority assigned to the copy of the first file;
automatically transfer, based on the first priority being greater than the second priority, the first metadata to the second client device such that the first metadata is transferred to the second client device prior to the copy of the first file being transferred to the second client device; and
automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,003,622 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/255,304 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 1,12,18, of instant application 19/255,304 is missing and/or absent of the limitation “receive, from the first client device, first metadata associated with the version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file, the first metadata being assigned a first priority greater than a second priority assigned to the copy of the first file;
automatically transfer, based on the first priority being greater than the second priority, the first metadata to the second client device such that the first metadata is transferred to the second client device prior to the copy of the first file being transferred to the second client device”, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 1,12,18 are broader
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of claims 1,11,16 of US Patent No. 11,003,622 to arrive at the claims 1,12,18 of the instant application 19/255,304 because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/255,304 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,607. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/255,304
US Patent No. 10,289,607
Claim 1,12,18,
a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, over a network, a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user,
wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device,
the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file;
determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user; and
store the copy of the first file on the server system;
automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device.
Claim 1,12,17, A system comprising:
a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, over a network, a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user,
wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device,
the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file;
receive, from the first client device, first metadata associated with the version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file, the first metadata being assigned a first priority greater than a second priority assigned to the copy of the first file;
determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user;
store the copy of the first file on the server system;
automatically transfer the first metadata to the second client device based on the first priority being greater than the second priority such that the first metadata is transferred to the second client device prior to the copy of the first file being transferred to the second client device; and
automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,607 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/255,304 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 1,12,18, of instant application 19/255,304 is missing and/or absent of the limitation “automatically transfer the first metadata to the second client device based on the first priority being greater than the second priority such that the first metadata is transferred to the second client device prior to the copy of the first file being transferred to the second client device”, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 1,12,18 are broader
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of claims 1,11,17 of US Patent No. 10,289,607 to arrive at the claims 1,12,18 of the instant application 19/255,304 because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/255,304 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,067,942. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/255,304
US Patent No. 10,067,942
Claim 1,12,18,
a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, over a network, a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user,
wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device,
the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file;
determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user; and
store the copy of the first file on the server system;
automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device.
Claim 1,10, A system comprising:
a first electronic device, associated with a user, configured to:
receive, via a first application at the first electronic device, a copy of a modified first electronic file from a second application at a second electronic device associated with the user, wherein the modified first electronic file copy is automatically received from the second application responsive to the user modifying a content of the first electronic file;
determine whether the first electronic device is in communication with a third electronic device;
automatically send, via the first application, the modified first electronic file copy to a third application at the third electronic device responsive to the determination that the first electronic device is in communication with the third electronic device and responsive to receiving the modified first electronic file copy from the second electronic device;
receive, via the first application, a copy of a modified second electronic file from the third application at the third electronic device associated with the user, wherein the modified second electronic file copy is automatically received from the third application responsive to the user modifying a content of the second electronic file;
determine whether the first electronic device is in communication with the second electronic device; and
automatically send, via the first application, the modified second electronic file copy to the second application at the second electronic device responsive to the determination that the first electronic device is in communication with the second electronic device and responsive to receiving the modified second electronic file copy from the third electronic device,
wherein, responsive to sending the modified first electronic file copy to the third electronic device, an older version of the first electronic file stored on the third electronic device is automatically caused to be replaced with the modified first electronic file copy such that the modified first electronic file copy is stored on the third electronic device in lieu of the older version of the first electronic file, and
wherein, responsive to sending the modified second electronic file copy to the second electronic device, an older version of the second electronic file stored on the second electronic device is automatically caused to be replaced with the modified second electronic file copy such that the modified second electronic file copy is stored on the second electronic device in lieu of the older version of the second electronic file.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,067,942 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/255,304 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 1,10 of instant application 19/255,304 “automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device”, while claim 1,10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,067,942.” automatically send, via the first application, the modified second electronic file copy to the second application at the second electronic device responsive to the determination that the first electronic device is in communication with the second electronic device and responsive to receiving the modified second electronic file copy from the third electronic device”, is/are absent of the limitation from instant application 19/255,304 claim 1,12,18, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 1,12,18 are broader
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of claims 1, 10 to arrive at the claims 1,12,18 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/255,304 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,143,561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/255,304
US Patent No. 9,143,561
Claim 1,12,18,
a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to:
receive, over a network, a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user,
wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device,
the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file;
determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user; and
store the copy of the first file on the server system;
automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device.
Claim 1,8, A system comprising:
a first electronic device configured to selectively execute a first application, the first electronic device being in communication with a second electronic device and a third electronic device, each associated with a user wherein the first electronic device is configured to:
receive from a second application executable on the second electronic device a copy of a first electronic file automatically transferred from the second application when the user modifies a content of the first electronic file; and
wherein the first electronic device is further configured to receive from a third application executable on the third electronic device a copy of a second electronic file automatically transferred from the third application when the user modifies a content of the second electronic file; and
wherein the first application is further configured to automatically transfer the modified first electronic file copy to the third electronic device to replace an older version of the first electronic file stored on the third electronic device with the modified first electronic file copy having the content modified by the user; and
automatically transfer the modified second electronic file copy to the second electronic device to replace an older version of the second electronic file stored on the second electronic device with the modified second electronic file copy having the content modified by the user;
wherein the second application automatically transfers the copy of the modified first electronic file to the first electronic device upon determining that a save operation has been performed on the modified first electronic file.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,143,561 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/255,304 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 1,10 of instant application 19/255,304, “automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device”, while claim 1,10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,067,942 “automatically transfer the modified second electronic file copy to the second electronic device to replace an older version of the second electronic file stored on the second electronic device with the modified second electronic file copy having the content modified by the user”, is/are absent of the limitation from instant application 19/255,304 claim 1,12,18, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 1,12,18 are broader
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of claims 1, 8 to arrive at the claims 1,12,18 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8,12-16,18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) unpatentable over Mohanty, US Pub. No. 2007/0180084 filed on Feb 2006, published Aug 2007 in view of Braginsky et al., (hereafter Braginsky), US Pub. No. 2015/0199414 filed on Dec, 2005
As to claim 1,12,18, Mohanty teaches a system which including “ A system comprising: a server system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the server system to: (Mohanty: fig 1A – Mohanty teaches client, server devices connected in a network environment);
PNG
media_image1.png
281
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“receive, over a network” (fig 1, element 20) , a copy of a first file from a first client device associated with a user (fig 1C, mobile device element 16 having files A, file C stored corresponds to copy of a first file from first client device), wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the first file stored on the first client device, the copy of the first file being a version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file (page 3, 0029, 0030, 0032, page 4, 0034-0035, page 5, 0044, fig 1B-1C – Mohanty teaches multiple mobile devices sharing files over a communication network, particularly logical documents may be associated with the mobile device 12 is automatically transferred from the mobile device 12 to other devices along notifying the users or devices that files have been updated, further it is noted that Mohanty supports automated rules that synchronize the file changed both by mobile or client device(s) and order entry device, thereby maintains modified or updated content of the file);;
PNG
media_image2.png
284
215
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
285
224
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“store the copy of the first file on the server system” (Mohanty: fig 1, 0007,0022; Braginsky: 0005 – Mohanty teaches multiple mobile devices connected to the server in a network environment supporting selected files and/or documents may be stored, copied, distributed and/or backup to the mobile device and/or server device, further Mohanty teaches document management allows to select particular device to store particular files and/or all files while organizing multiple data files as detailed in 0022; Braginsky teaches copies of the files may be stored on a server because file system element 116 manages to store files in a one or more selected devices);
It is however, noted that Mohanty does not teach “determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user”, “automatically transfer, over a network, the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device, responsive to (1) resuming communication with the second client device and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device”.
On the other hand, Braginsky disclosed “determine that the server system is not in communication with a second client device associated with the user” (Braginsky: 0026,0028 – Braginsky teaches if the client system element 102 is not connected to the server system element 104, it is still maintains file hierarchy in a local cache that including whatever modifications have been made to the locally cached file system element 116, further if the client system element 102 is not connected to the server system element 104, file system 116 of Braginsky will returns the locally cached version of the requested file as detailed in 0028); “automatically transfer, over a network,(Braginsky: fig 1, Abstract, 0052 – Braginsky teaches synchronizing files over communication network, particularly, supports automatically transferring of files based on the priority policy and maintains consistency of file information) the copy of the first file to the second client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the first file stored on the second client device” (Braginsky: 0067-0068 – Braginsky teaches maintaining the file versions, modification to the files, while periodically detecting changes to the files and synchronizing that including resolving any conflicts of version(s) as detailed in 0067-0068); responsive to (1) resuming communication with the second client device” (Braginsky: 0044, 0072 – Braginsky teaches synchronizing files between devices that including periodically checking connections to resume activity such as uploading, copying and like) and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device” (Braginsky: 0047-0048 – Braginsky teaches task queue, task manager with respect to set policy in receiving file copy from the client device(s))
PNG
media_image4.png
220
297
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to incorporate transferring files, upload, download files driven by the defined priority policy based parameters, while synchronized mode maintains copies of files on the server system of Braginsky et al., into managing logical documents to be stored, copies, distributed on selected network devices of Mohanty because both Mohanty, because both Mohanty, Braginsky teaches managing file content that including receiving and transmitting in a network environment (Mohanty: Abstract, fig 1; Braginsky: 1, Abstract), both Mohanty, Braginsky teaches synchronizing, maintaining versions files (Mohanty: fig 3, element 210, 208; Braginsky: fig 6-7, 0027) and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Mohanty, Sigurdsson teaches synchronization of file content in an network environment, that would have allowed users of Mohanty to substitute and/or modify one method over the other specifically automatically receiving content associated with the metadata (Braginsky: fig 8, element 206), while priority policy, task queue used by each of the clients to determine when to transmit content from particular file(s) to the server or another client (Braginsky: 0044,0047-0048, fig 2, fig 4, ) thereby improving exchanging accessed files between multiple computers in a network environment , while maintaining file system locally, and overall access control (Braginsky: 0024,0029,0031)
PNG
media_image5.png
257
203
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
217
308
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
151
358
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2,13, the combination of Mohanty, Braginsky disclosed: wherein the computer program instructions, when executed, cause the server system to: (Mohanty: fig 1; Braginsky: fig 2);
“store the copy of the first file to a memory device associated with the server system, wherein the copy of the first file is stored on the memory device associated with the server system (Mohanty: fig 1, 0007,0022; Braginsky: 0005) responsive to determining that the server system is not in communication with the second client device (Braginsky: 0026,0028) and
automatically transfer the copy of the first file to the second client device to replace the older version of the first file stored on the second client device with the copy of the first file (Braginsky: fig 1, Abstract, 0052, 0067-0068);responsive to (i) resuming communication with the second client device (Braginsky: 0044, 0072) and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the first client device (Braginsky: 0047-0048).
As to claim 3,15,19 the combination of Mohanty, Braginsky disclosed:
“receive, from the first client device” (Mohanty : fig 1, 0058;Braginsky:: fig 1, 0021-0022) , “first metadata associated with the version of the first file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the first file, the first metadata being assigned a first priority greater than a second priority assigned to the copy of the first file (Braginsky: fig 2-3, 0031, 0036-0037, fig 8, 214, 0077); and
“automatically transfer, based on the first priority being greater than the second priority, the first metadata to the second client device such that the first metadata is transferred to the second client device prior to the copy of the first file being transferred to the second client device” (Braginsky: 0076-0078).
As to claim 4,16,20 the combination of Mohanty, Braginsky disclosed: “wherein at least one of the server system or the first client device comprises a priority assignment configuration to assign greater priority to metadata associated with files than priority assigned to the files such that at least one of the server system or the first client device assigns the first priority to the first metadata and the second priority to the copy of the first file based on the priority assignment configuration” (Braginsky: fig 3, fig 7, 0076-0078).
As to claim 5 Braginsky disclosed “wherein availability of the version of the first file is presented at the second client device based on the first metadata” (Braginsky : fig 3, 0035-0036)
As to claim 6, the combination of Mohanty, Braginsky disclosed:
“receive a copy of a second file from the second client device associated with the user, wherein the copy of the second file is automatically received from the second client device responsive to the user modifying a content of the second file stored on the second client device, the copy of the second file being a version of the second file that is generated from the user modifying the content of the second file” (Mohanty :page 3, 0027, page 5, 0047, page 6, 0050, 0054, fig 3,fig 5).
“determine that the server system is in communication with the first client device associated with the user” (Mohanty: fig 1, 0028-0029; Braginsky: fig 1, 0020-0021); and
automatically transfer the copy of the second file to the first client device associated with the user to replace an older version of the second file stored on the first client device (Braginsky : 0052, 0067-0068), responsive to (1) determining that the server system is in communication with the first client device (Mohanty: fig 1, 0028-0029; Braginsky: fig 1, 0020-0021); and (ii) receiving the copy of the first file from the second client device (Braginsky: 0047-0048)
As to claim 7 the combination of Mohanty, Braginsky disclosed:
“periodically perform a pull request, wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive to (i) the pull request (Braginsky : 0066-0067,0069)and (ii) the user modifying the content of the first file stored on the first client device.( Braginsky : 0065,0066)
As to claim 8 the combination of Mohanty, Braginsky disclosed:
“wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from the first client device responsive(Braginsky : 0052,0066-0067) to (i) a push request of the first client device (Braginsky : fig 2-3, 0066-0067,0069) and (ii) the user modifying the content of the first file stored on the first client device ( Braginsky : 0065,0066)
As to claim 14 the combination of Mohanty, Braginsky disclosed:
“storing, by the server system, the copy of the first file to a memory device associated with the server system, wherein the copy of the first file is stored on the memory device associated with the server system responsive to initially determining that the server system is not in communication with the second client device” (Braginsky: 0023-0026,0036-0037, fig 2-3)
Claim(s) 9-11,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) unpatentable over Mohanty, US Pub. No. 2007/0180084 filed on Feb 2006, published Aug 2007 Braginsky et al., (hereafter Braginsky), US Pub. No. 2015/0199414 filed on Dec, 2005, further in view of Yeager et al., US Pub. No. 2004/0088348 published May,2004.
As to claim 9 the combination of Mohanty, Braginsky disclosed: wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from a first application at the first client device” (Braginsky: 0025,0035-0036, fig 1-3). It is however, noted that the combination of Mohanty, Braginsky do not disclose “wherein the first application comprises a runtime environment for one or more mobile-agent objects, although Mohanty teaches mobile devices connected in a network environment, and each mobile device handles logical document management files, as such mobile agent is a software and data that is able to migrate or move from one computer to another and continue its execution on the destination computer for example as shown in fig 1,fig 9-10). On the other hand, Yeager teaches “wherein the first application comprises a runtime environment for one or more mobile-agent objects” (Yeager : fig 35, 0082,0086 – Yeager teaches peer-to-peer networking using a mobile agent)
PNG
media_image8.png
376
315
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to incorporate managing distribution of content using mobile agents in a network environment of Yeager et al., into users of Mohanty, Braginsky because that would have allowed users of Mohanty, Braginsky to collect information on distributor content stored on the peer nodes, while peer devices may serve as a client or server to other devices (0080), further mobile agent may be configured to search for the latest version of a particular data file (Yeager: 0192)
As to claim 10 Yeager disclosed “ wherein the first application is configured to create a first mobile object, and wherein the first mobile object is configured to create a proxy object at the server system” (Yeager : fig 26, 27A-B, 0970, 0972)
PNG
media_image9.png
202
297
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
173
322
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11 Yeager disclosed “ wherein the first mobile object is configured to provide the copy of the first file to the proxy object, and wherein the proxy object is configured to store the copy of the first file on a memory device associated with the server system” (fig 45, 0188, 0969)
PNG
media_image11.png
330
151
media_image11.png
Greyscale
As to claim 17 Braginsky disclosed “wherein the copy of the first file is automatically received from a first application at the first client device,( Braginsky: 0052, 0067-0068) On the other hand Yeager disclosed “wherein the first application comprises a runtime environment for one or more mobile-agent objects fig 35, 0082,0086 – Yeager teaches peer-to-peer networking using a mobile agent), and wherein the first application is configured to create a first mobile object, and the first mobile object is configured to create a proxy object at the server system and to provide the copy of the first file to the proxy object (Yeager fig 26, 27A-B, 0970, 0972)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2007/0180084
b. US Pub. No. 2015/0199414
c. US Pub. No. 2004/0088348
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights