This non-final action “supersede” previous office action mailed on 7/2/2026
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, PTO-1449 mailed on 7/2/2026
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
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,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, 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
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.
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