DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12443566. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope.
Claims 1, 11, 16 recite the same limitation as claims 1, 7, 20 of the reference patent 12443566
Claims 2, 12, 17 recite the same limitation as claim 15 of the reference patent 12443566
Claims 3, 13, 18 recite the same limitation as claim 16 of the reference patent 12443566
Claims 4, 14, 19 recite the same limitation as claim 17 of the reference patent 12443566
Claim 5 recites the same limitation as claim 1 of the reference patent 12443566
Claim 6 recites the same limitation as claims 1, 18 of the reference patent 12443566
Claim 9 recites the same limitation as claim 7 of the reference patent 12443566
Claim 10 recites the same limitation as claim 9 of the reference patent 2443566.
The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patents are compared in the table below:
The instance application
PAT 12443566
1. A computer-implemented method for email synchronization of a data table, the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a table email address for a data table, wherein the table email address is a new email address associated with the data table;
receiving an email addressed to the table email address, wherein the email comprises a data file including one or more records, each record of the one or more records comprising a respective record identifier;
mapping the one or more records to the data table using the respective record identifiers; and
updating the data table using the mapped one or more records.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-implemented method further comprising: determining that a record identifier in the data file does not match any of the respective record identifiers of the data table; and adding the record to the data table as a new record, the new record having the record identifier.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, the computer-implemented method further comprising: converting, using a data type map of the data file, a data type of the new record to a data type of data table data types, wherein the data type map maps data file data types to the data table data types.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-implemented method further comprising: determining that a record identifier of a record in the data table does not match any record identifier in the data file; and removing the record from the data table.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-implemented method further comprising: verifying that a user-provided password for accessing the data table matches a correct password protecting access to the data table; and in response to the user-provided matching the correct password, enabling the data synchronization without requiring password reentry for a predetermined time period.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-implemented method further comprising: verifying that the email is sent from a domain that is authorized to update the data table.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each respective record identifier is an attribute of the one or more records in the data file.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request to synchronize data to the data table from a second data source; and synchronizing data from the second data source to the data table.
11. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to: generate a table email address for a data table, wherein the table email address is a new email address associated with the data table; receive an email addressed to the table email address, wherein the email comprises a data file including one or more records, each record of the one or more records comprising a respective record identifier; map the one or more records to the data table using the respective record identifiers; and update the data table using the mapped one or more records.
12. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to: determine that a record identifier in the data file does not match any of the respective record identifiers of the data table; and add the record to the data table as a new record, the new record having the record identifier.
13. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to: convert, using a data type map of the data file, a data type of the new record to a data type of data table data types, wherein the data type map maps data file data types to the data table data types.
14. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to: determine that a record identifier of a record in the data table does not match any record identifier in the data file; and remove the record from the data table.
16. A system comprising: a computer system; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to:generate a table email address for a data table, wherein the table email address is a new email address associated with the data table;receive an email addressed to the table email address, wherein the email comprises a data file including one or more records, each record of the one or more records comprising a respective record identifier;map the one or more records to the data table using the respective record identifiers;and update the data table using the mapped one or more records.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to: determine that a record identifier in the data file does not match any of the respective record identifiers of the data table; and add the record to the data table as a new record, the new record having the record identifier.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to: convert, using a data type map of the data file, a data type of the new record to a data type of data table data types, wherein the data type map maps data file data types to the data table data types.
19. The system of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to: determine that a record identifier of a record in the data table does not match any record identifier in the data file; and remove the record from the data table.
1. A computer-implemented method for email synchronization of a data table, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a server comprising a processor, a request to synchronize data with a data table, wherein the data table includes records, each record of the records in the data table having a respective record identifier and one or more attributes;
generating, by the server, a table email address corresponding to the data table, wherein the table email address is a new email address that uniquely identifies the data table;
receiving, by the server, an email addressed to the table email address, wherein the email comprises a data file including one or more corresponding updated records to update the records in the data table corresponding to the table email address, each updated record of the one or more corresponding updated records comprising a respective record identifier of the respective record identifiers and one or more updated attributes; verifying, by the server, that the email is from an email address that has access permission to the data table; generating, by the server, a prompt requesting a user initiating data synchronization to submit a password, wherein the data synchronization for the data table is password-protected by a correct password; and in response to the password provided by the user matching the correct password, enabling the data synchronization without requiring password reentry for a predetermined time period;
mapping, by the server, the one or more corresponding updated records in the data file to one or more records in the data table by, for each updated record, matching the respective record identifier of the respective record identifiers in the data file to the respective record identifier in the data table; and
updating, by the server based on the enabling the data synchronization, the data table corresponding to the table email address by updating the one or more attributes of each corresponding record of the records in the data table with the one or more updated attributes of the corresponding updated record in the data file.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the data file is a comma-separated value file.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the server, a request to synchronize data to the data table from a second data source; and synchronizing, by the server, data from the second data source to the data table.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the server, a request to view a sync history of the data table; and sending to a client device for display, by the server, the sync history of the data table, wherein the sync history of the data table comprises, for each record identifier in the data table, a value of a respective record after each historic synchronization to the data table.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the table email address includes an identifier of the data table.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the email addressed to the table email address is addressed from an email address on a preset list of email addresses authorized to access the data table.
7. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions executable by one or more processors, the instructions comprising instructions to: receive, by a server comprising a processor, a request to synchronize data with a data table, wherein the data table includes records, each record of the records in the data table having a respective record identifier and one or more attributes; generate, by the server, a table email address corresponding to the data table, wherein the table email address is a new email address that uniquely identifies the data table; receive, by the server, an email addressed to the table email address, wherein the email comprises a data file including one or more corresponding updated records to update the records in the data table corresponding to the table email address, each updated record of the one or more corresponding updated records comprising a respective record identifier of the respective record identifiers and one or more updated attributes; verify, by the server, that the email is from an email address that has access permission to the data table; generate, by the server, a prompt requesting a user initiating data synchronization to submit a password, wherein the data synchronization for the data table is password-protected by a correct password; and in response to the password provided by the user matching the correct password, enable the data synchronization without requiring password reentry for a predetermined time period; map, by the server, the one or more corresponding updated records in the data file to one or more records in the data table by, for each updated record, matching the respective record identifier of the respective record identifiers in the data file to the respective record identifier in the data table; and update, by the server based on the enabling the data synchronization, the data table corresponding to the table email address by updating the one or more attributes of each corresponding record of the records in the data table with the one or more updated attributes of the corresponding updated record in the data file.
8. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein the data file is a comma-separated value file.
9. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, the instructions further comprising instructions to: receive, by the server, a request to synchronize data to the data table from a second data source; and synchronize, by the server, data from the second data source to the data table.
10. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, the instructions further comprising instructions to: receive, by the server, a request to view a sync history of the data table; and send to a client device for display, by the server, the sync history of the data table, wherein the sync history of the data table comprises, for each record identifier in the data table, a value of a respective record after each historic synchronization to the data table.
11. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein each respective record identifier is an attribute of the one or more records in the data file.
12. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, the instructions comprising instructions to: determine, by the server, a record identifier selection, wherein the record identifier selection determines, for each record of the one or more records, the respective record identifier.
13. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein the table email address includes an identifier of the data table.
14. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein the table email address includes a name of the data table.
15. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein the data file further comprises an additional record having an additional record identifier and one or more additional attributes, the instructions further comprising instructions to: determine that the additional record identifier in the data file does not match any of the respective record identifiers of the data table; and add the additional record to the data table as a new record, the new record having the additional record identifier.
16. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein a data type map of the data file maps data file data types to data table data types, the instructions further comprising instructions to: convert, using the data type map, a data type of the new record to a data type of the data table data types.
17. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, the instructions further comprising instructions to: determine that another record identifier of an additional record in the data table does not match any record identifier in the data file; and remove the additional record from the data table.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein the data table is email domain-protected, the instructions further comprising instructions to: verify, by the server, that the email address is associated with a permissioned domain.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, the instructions further comprising instructions to: cease, by the server, data synchronization in response to determining that the email is associated with a permissioned domain is deactivated.
20. A system, the system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions executable by the one or more processors, the instructions comprising instructions to:
receive, by a server comprising a processor, a request to synchronize data with a data table,
wherein the data table includes records, each record of the records in the data table having a respective record identifier and one or more attributes; generate, by the server, a table email address corresponding to the data table, wherein the table email address is a new email address that uniquely identifies the data table; receive, by the server, an email addressed to the table email address, wherein the email comprises a data file including one or more corresponding updated records to update the records in the data table corresponding to the table email address, each updated record of the one or more corresponding updated records comprising a respective record identifier of the respective record identifiers and one or more updated attributes; verify, by the server, that the email is from an email address that has access permission to the data table; generate, by the server, a prompt requesting a user initiating data synchronization to submit a password, wherein the data synchronization for the data table is password-protected by a correct password; and in response to the password provided by the user matching the correct password, enable the data synchronization without requiring password reentry for a predetermined time period; map, by the server, the one or more corresponding updated records in the data file to one or more records in the data table by, for each updated record, matching the respective record identifier of the respective record identifiers in the data file to the respective record identifier in the data table; and update, by the server based on the enabling the data synchronization, the data table corresponding to the table email address by updating the one or more attributes of each corresponding record of the records in the data table with the one or more updated attributes of the corresponding updated record in the data file.
2
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.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 11 to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and claim 16 to a system, which are statutory categories of invention per Step 1. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or are significantly more.
Step 2A:
a) In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claims 1, 11, 16 similarly recite abstract idea of
generating a table email address for a data table, wherein the table email address is a new email address associated with the data table;
mapping the one or more records to the data table using the respective record identifiers) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. The human mind can perform steps of generating and mapping. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
Claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations of computer program instructions that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to (in claim 11); and a computer system; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to (in claim 16).
The addition limitation of (receiving an email addressed to the table email address; updating the data table using the mapped one or more records) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of (wherein the email comprises a data file including one or more records, each record of the one or more records comprising a respective record identifier) that just indicate records including identifiers.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial because additional limitation of computer program instructions that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to (in claim 11); and a computer system; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to (in claim 16).
The addition limitation of (receiving an email addressed to the table email address; updating the data table using the mapped one or more records) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of (wherein the email comprises a data file including one or more records, each record of the one or more records comprising a respective record identifier) that just indicate records including identifiers.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-20 include all the limitations of claims 1, 11, 16. Therefore, claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-20 recite the same abstract idea being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
In particularly:
Claims 2, 12, 17 recite limitations of (determining that a record identifier in the data file does not match any of the respective record identifiers of the data table) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. The human mind can perform steps of determining and adding. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The additional limitations of (adding the record to the data table as a new record) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp) and (the new record having the record identifier) that just indicates record having identifier.
Claims 3, 13, 18 recite limitations of (converting, using a data type map of the data file, a data type of the new record to a data type of data table data types) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. The human mind can perform steps of converting. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The additional limitation of (wherein the data type map maps data file data types to the data table data types) that just indicates mapping data to types.
Claims 4, 14, 19 recite limitations of (determining that a record identifier of a record in the data table does not match any record identifier in the data file) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. The human mind can perform step of determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The addition limitation of (removing the record from the data table) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Claim 5 recites limitations of (verifying that a user-provided password for accessing the data table matches a correct password protecting access to the data table; and in response to the user-provided matching the correct password, enabling the data synchronization without requiring password reentry for a predetermined time period) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. The human mind can perform steps of verifying and enabling. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites limitation of (verifying that the email is sent from a domain that is authorized to update the data table) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. The human mind can perform step of verifying. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites limitations of (receiving a request to view a sync history of the data table; and sending to a client device for display the sync history of the data table) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
(wherein the sync history of the data table comprises, for each record identifier in the data table, values of the respective record before and after to the updating of the data table using the mapped one or more records) that just indicates history of table including values for identifier before and after updating.
Claim 8 recites limitations of (wherein the sync history of the data table further comprises, for each record identifier in the data table an indicator of which source from which the email originated) that just indicates history including indicator of emailed originated.
Claim 9 recites limitation of (wherein each respective record identifier is an attribute of the one or more records in the data file) that just indicates identifier as attribute of record.
Claim 10 recite limitation of (receiving a request to synchronize data to the data table from a second data source; and synchronizing data from the second data source to the data table) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Claims 15, 20 recite limitation of (receive a request to view a sync history of the data table; and send to a client device for display the sync history of the data table,) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of (wherein the sync history of the data table comprises, for each record identifier in the data table, a value of the respective record after each historic synchronization to the data table and an indicator of which source from which a change to the respective record originated) that just indicates history including values after synchronizing.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 11-12, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunet et al (US 20110314035) in view of Lee et al (US 20110258160)
As to claim 1, Brunet teaches computer-implemented method for email synchronization of a data table, the computer-implemented method comprising:
“generating a table email address for a data table, wherein the table email address is a new email address associated with the data table” as generating an unique email address for a data map as data table or data map viewer as data table (abstract, paragraphs 110-112, fig. 8), the unique email address for the data map as data table or data map viewer as data table (figs. 4-6) is represented as a table email address corresponding to the data map as the data table, the unique email address is generated only when a particular data map viewer is downloaded to the mobile device that shows there is no previous email address or existing email address for the particular data map viewer before downloading; thus the unique email address that is generated is represented a new email address (paragraphs 111-112),
“receiving an email addressed to the table email address, wherein the email comprises a data file including one or more records” as receiving, by the mobile device, an email addressed to the unique email address (paragraphs 114, fig. 11) of the data map or data map viewer as table (paragraphs 110-112, figs. 5-6), the email includes an attachment as file containing extracted metadata attributes as one or more records for the new file(s) which were added to the data source (fig. 11, paragraph 114);
“updating the data table using……” as updating the data map as the data table using updates (fig. 11, paragraphs 110, 114).
Brunet does not explicitly teach limitations
each record of the one or more records comprising a respective record identifier;
mapping the one or more records to the data table using the respective record identifiers; the mapped one or more records.
Lee teaches limitations
“each record of the one or more records comprising a respective record identifier” as each record of the one or more records includes identification as identifier (fig. 3A, paragraph 30);
“mapping the one or more records to the data table using the respective record identifiers” as comparing as mapping the one or more records in data table T2 with one or more records in data record T3 using identifications e.g., UIDs (paragraphs 30, 32-33, 51-52, figs. 3A-3C, 8);
“the mapped one or more records” as compared as mapped one or more records (fig. 3A-3C, paragraphs 30, 32, 34-35, 40-41).
Lee further teaches limitations
“updating the data table using the mapped one or more records” as updating, using records that are compared as mapped with modified records, the table t3 corresponding to the table t2 by updating timestamps of records in the table t3 with the updated timestamps of the updated records in the table t2 (fig. 3A-3C, paragraphs 30, 32, 34-35, 40-41).
For example, the mobile device 120 may compare only records with the timestamps larger than the value LastSync to efficiently compare modified records in the second synchronization procedure. Moreover, the timestamps of all records would have to be updated with a new LastSync value after the second synchronization procedure has been completed. For example, in one embodiment, if the value LastSync is set to be 2 pm and a timestamp of a fourth record is 3 pm, only the data record with the timestamp larger than 2 pm within the second data record (i.e. the fourth record) will be compared with the respective one in the third data record in the data server 130 and updated if the data is inconsistent. Thereafter, the new LastSync value is updated to 3 pm and the timestamps of all records will be updated to 3 pm (paragraph 41).
Lee and Brunet teach a method of synchronizing data between databases. These references are in the same field with application's field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lee’s teaching to Brunet’s system to efficiently and correctly synchronize data among the mobile device and all synchronization sources and handling data conflict thereof and further to efficiently compare modified records in the second synchronization procedure.
As to claims 2, 12, 17, Brunet and Lee teach limitations
“wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to” as the instructions are executed by a computer system (Brunet: paragraphs 35, 38, 50; Lee: paragraphs 27, 56); and/or
“determine or determining that a record identifier in the data file does not match any of the respective record identifiers of the data table” as determining ID data as a record identifier of a second record as the data file is different from as does not match ID data of a third data record; thus the ID data of the second record is replaced with ID data of a third data record for synchronizing between the second record with the third data record (Lee: paragraphs 50-53; fig. 8; Brunet: paragraph 111);
“adding the record to the data table as a new record, the new record having the record identifier” as copying as adding the record into the third data record as a new record (Lee: paragraph 47; Brunet: paragraphs 113-114), the new record has the ID data as the record identifier (Lee: paragraphs 47, 50-53; Brunet: paragraphs 113-114).
As to claim 9, Brunet and Lee teach limitations
“wherein each respective record identifier is an attribute of the one or more records in the data file” as each record ID is an attribute of a record in the second record as the data file (Lee: paragraphs 30, 40, figs. 3A-3C) or the attachment as the data file (Brunet: figs. 5-6, paragraphs 110-111, 114).
As to claim 10, Brunet and Lee teach limitations
“receiving a request to synchronize data to the data table from a second data source” as receiving a request to (Lee: paragraph 30) synchronize data in the second record as the data table (in the mobile device) from data in server e.g., 3rd party synchronization source as a second data source (Lee: paragraphs 6-7, 30, figs. 1, 3A-3C; Brunet: paragraphs 103-104); and
“synchronizing data from the second data source to the data table” as synchronizing data from a 3rd party synchronization source to the second data record as the data table (Lee: paragraphs 6-7, 30, figs. 1, 3A-3C; Brunet: paragraphs 103-104).
Claim 11 has the same limitation as claim 1; thus claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as discussed in claim 1. In addition, Brunet and Lee teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to: (Brunet: paragraphs 35, 38, 50; Lee: paragraphs 27, 56).
Claim 16 has the same limitation as claim 1; thus claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as discussed in claim 1. In addition, Brunet and Lee teach a system comprising: a computer system; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to (a computer system; and a memory storing components that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to: Brunet: paragraphs 35, 38, 50; Lee: paragraphs 27, 56).
Claims 3, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunet in view of Lee and further in view of Kumar et al (US 20230004538).
As to claims 3, 13, 18, Brunet and Lee teach limitations
wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to” as the instructions are executed by a computer (Brunet: paragraphs 35, 38, 50; Lee: paragraphs 27, 56); and/or
“……of the data file” a data map of the data file(s) (Brunet: paragraph 10), “……of the new record ……” as ID data of the new file as the new record (Lee: paragraphs 47, 50-53; Brunet: paragraphs 113-114).
Brunet and Lee do not explicitly teach limitations
convert or converting, using a data type map……, a data type ……to a data type of data table data types, wherein the data type map maps data file data types to the data table data types.
Kumar teaches limitations
“convert or converting, using a data type map ……, a data type ……to a data type of data table data types” as converting, based on the metadata mapping layer 122 as the data type map, data type of database source to data type of data types of destination database as data table types (paragraph 53).
In particularly: The metadata mapping layer 122 maps the data types corresponding to the source database(s) 203 (or 103) to the data types corresponding to the identified destination database(s) 205 (or 105). Data type names are identified from the source and destination database metadata, and the mapping is based, at least in part, on the one or more data type names. At block 264, data type conversion scripting is performed for the conversion of source data types to mapped destination data types. Data types are converted from a format of one database to a format of another database. In a non-limiting example, in a relation database a “varchar” data type may be used, but in an MPP database a “Char” or “Text” data type may be used. Data type conversion scripting is performed to map one datatype to another data type (paragraph 53),
“wherein the data type map maps data file data types to the data table data types” as the metadata mapping layer 122 as a data type map of database management platform 110 maps the data types corresponding to the source database(s) 203 or 103 as data file data types to the data types corresponding to the identified destination database(s) 205 or 105 as the data table data types (paragraphs 43, 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kumar’s teaching to Brunet’s system to improve database management by efficiently and automatically determining accurate destination database models on which to base the replication of data from source databases in destination databases and further to provide a gateway for data movement and/or replication between the differently configured databases, saving extract, transform, load (ETL) processing time and overall cost and reducing delays.
Claims 4, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunet in view of Lee and further in view of Pimprikar et al (or hereinafter “Pi”) (US 20150379037).
As to claims 4, 14, 19, Brunet and Lee teach limitations
“wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to” as the instructions are executed by a computer system (Brunet: paragraphs 35, 38, 50; Lee: paragraphs 27, 56); and/or
“determine or determining that a record identifier of a record in the data table does not match any record identifier in the data file” as determining ID data as a record identifier of a second record as the data file is different from as does not match ID data in a third data record; thus the ID data of the second record is replaced with ID data in a third data record for synchronizing between the second record with the third data record (Lee: paragraphs 50-53; fig. 8; Brunet: paragraph 111).
Brunet and Lee do not explicitly teach limitations
remove or removing the record from the data table.
Pi teaches limitations
“remove or removing the record from the data table” as when the ID of the first object does not match any ID of the at least one object, deleting the first object from the client database as the data table (fig. 9B, paragraphs 63-97; page 6, col. Left).
Pi further teaches limitations
“determine or determining that a record identifier of a record in the data table does not match any record identifier in the data file; removing the record from the data table” as remove local objects that include a second object as addition record in the client database 222 as the data table when IDs of the local objects do not exist or match with IDs of the remote objects in the database as the data table (figs. 9A-9B, paragraphs 6, 63-65; page 7, col. left).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Pi’s teaching to Brunet’s system to quickly synchronize data between a database system and its client applications without overburdening user computing devices and further to significantly remove performance of the user computing device and the client application.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunet in view of Lee and further in view of O’Brien et al (or hereinafter “Brien’”) (US 20100179892) and Livne (US 20130061307).
As to claim 5, Brunet and Lee teach limitations
“……the data table……the data table” as the data table (Lee: paragraphs 6-7, 30, figs. 3A-3C; Brunet: paragraphs 103-104);
“……enabling the data synchronization……” as enabling the data synchronization: paragraphs: Lee: fig. 3A-3C, paragraphs 30, 32, 34-35; Brunet: paragraph 103-104);
Brunet and Lee do not teach limitations
verifying that a user-provided password for accessing ……matches a correct password protecting access to……; and in response to the user-provided matching the correct password, ……without requiring password reentry for a predetermined time period.
Brien teaches limitations
“verifying that a user-provided password for accessing ……matches a correct password protecting access to the data table; and in response to the user-provided matching the correct password, ……” as verifying that user-entered password for accessing account or database matches stored password protecting access to an account or database; and in response to the user-entered password matching the stored password, accessing the account (paragraphs 3, 39-40).
Brien further teaches limitation
“verifying that a user-provided password for accessing the data table matches a correct password protecting access to the data table; and in response to the user-provided matching the correct password……” as verifying that user-entered password for accessing account or database as the data table matches stored password protecting access to an account or database as the data table; and in response to the user-entered password matching the stored password, accessing the account (paragraphs 3, 39-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Brien’s teaching to Brunet’s system to protect user data stored in a storage device from accessing without permission.
Livne teaches limitations
“without requiring password reentry for a predetermined time period” as without having to re-provide the user password within period of time (paragraph 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Livne’s teaching to Brunet’s system to provide a secure mechanism for protecting password used for accessing e-mail accounts, and further to increase usability of mobile devices.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunet in view of Lee and further in view of Zahed (US 20210092123).
As to claim 6, Brunet and Lee teach limitation
“……to update the data table” as update the data table (Lee: figs. 3A-3C, paragraphs 30-32; Brunet: paragraphs 110-112).
Brunet and Lee do not explicitly teach limitations
verifying that the email is sent from a domain that is authorized.
Zahed teaches limitations
“verifying that the email is sent from a domain that is authorized” as verifying that the email is sent from a domain (paragraphs 7-8, 71, abstract) that is allowed to add information to DNS record in (paragraph 10-11) a file (paragraph 65-66).
Zahed further teaches limitations
“verifying that the email is sent from a domain that is authorized to update the data table” as verifying that the email is sent from a domain (paragraphs 7-8, 71, abstract) that is allowed to add information to DNS record in (paragraph 10-11) a file (paragraph 65-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Zahed’s teaching to Brunet’s system to protect data from modifying without permission and further to help in prevention of email spoofing to implement protocols for enhancing email security.
Claims 7, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunet in view of Lee and further in view of Baek et al (or hereinafter “Baek”) (US 20180189369)
As to claim 7, Brunet and Lee teach limitations
“receiving a request to view ……of the data table” as receiving a request to (Lee: paragraphs 6, 30, 56) navigate and select as view a structure elements e.g., backup summary 303 of the data map as the data table (Brunet: figs. 2-3, paragraphs 37-38); and
“sending to a client device for display ……of the data table” as sending to the mobile device of a user as client device for (Brunet: paragraphs 49, 28-29) display data structure element(s) e.g., backup summary 303 of the data map as the data table (Brunet: figs. 2-3, paragraphs 37, 39, 49; Lee: paragraph 27),
“wherein ……of the data table comprises, for each record identifier in the data table, values of the respective record before and after to the updating of the data table using the mapped one or more records” as the backup summary 303 of the data map as the data table comprises, for each document path as each record identifier in the data map as the data table, size, date modified as values of document as the respective record after the updating of the data map as the data table (Brunet: figs. 2-3, paragraphs 37, 39, 49) using compared records as mapped records and field values before updating of the second record as the data table using compared records (Lee: fig. 3A-3C, paragraphs 30, 32, 34-35, 40-41).
Brunet and Lee do not explicitly teach limitations
a sync history; the sync history; the sync history;
Baek teaches limitations
a sync history; the sync history; the sync history (as a user can view a synchronization history of content item of the data table or account: fig. 8, paragraphs 125-127,43, 63).
Baek further teaches limitations
(view a sync history of the data table; the sync history of the data table; the sync history of the data table) as user can view a synchronization history of content item of the data table: fig. 8, paragraphs 125-127,43, 63);
“wherein the sync history of the data table comprises, for each record identifier in the data table, values of the respective record…… after to the updating of the data table” as the synchronization history of the data table comprises, for each content item timestamp 806 as content item identifier in the table, Edited by user A, size as values of the respective content item after synchronizing as updating of the data table (fig. 8, paragraphs 67, paragraphs 125-127) or server tier 120 (paragraphs 40-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Baek’s teaching to Brunet’s system to reduce amount of processing and other computing resources and further to provide adequate versioning tools so that account users may better manage different versions of synchronization content items.
As to claims 15, 20, Brunet and Lee teach limitations
:wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to” as the instructions are executed by a computer system (Brunet: paragraphs 35, 38, 50; Lee: paragraphs 27, 56): and/or
“receive or receiving a request to view ……of the data table” as receiving a request to (Lee: paragraphs 6, 30, 56) navigate and select as view a structure elements e.g., backup summary 303 of the data map as the data table (Brunet: figs. 2-3, paragraphs 37-38); and
“send or sending to a client device for display ……of the data table” as sending to the mobile device of a user as client device for (Brunet: paragraphs 49, 28-29) display data structure element(s) e.g., backup summary 303 of the data map as the data table (Brunet: figs. 2-3, paragraphs 37, 39, 49; Lee: paragraph 27),
“wherein ……of the data table comprises, for each record identifier in the data table, a value of the respective record after ……to the data table and……of which source from which a change to the respective record originated” as the backup summary 303 of the data map as the data table comprises, for each document path as each record identifier in the data map as the data table, size, date modified as values of document as the respective record after updating the data map (Brunet: figs. 2-3, paragraphs 37, 39, 49, 114) using compared records as mapped with modified records (Lee: fig. 3A-3C, paragraphs 30, 32, 34-35, 40-41) and content of difference as source between any record of the second data record and the retrieved record to update the data stored in the second data record according to the retrieved data record (Lee: paragraph 30) that indicates difference between the records is source from which a change to the record updated as originated.
Brunet and Lee do not explicitly teach limitations
a sync history; the sync history; the sync history;
each historic synchronization and an indicator.
Baek teaches limitations
a sync history; the sync history; the sync history (as a user can view a synchronization history of a table: fig. 8, paragraphs 125-127);
each historic synchronization and an indicator (as last synchronization as historic synchronization and a diff button 810 as indicator: fig. 8, paragraphs 40-41, 67, paragraphs 125-127).
Baek further teaches limitations
(view a sync history of the data table; the sync history of the data table; the sync history of the data table) as user can view a synchronization history of content item of the data table: fig. 8, paragraphs 125-127,43, 63);
wherein the sync history of the data table comprises, for each record identifier in the data table, value of the respective record after to historic synchronization to the table and an indicator of which source (as the synchronization history of table comprises, for each content item timestamp 806 as content item identifier in the table, Edited by user A, size as values of the respective content item after last synchronization to the table and diff button 810 as indicator of difference that when selected cause client application 804 to display the diff between versions 806a and 806b (fig. 8, paragraphs 40-41, 67, paragraphs 125-127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Baek’s teaching to Brunet’s system to reduce amount of processing and other computing resources and further to provide adequate versioning tools so that account users may better manage different versions of synchronization content items.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunet in view of Lee and further in view of Baek, and Forstall et al (or hereinafter “Fo”) (US 20080313292)
As to claim 8, Brunet, Lee, Baek teach limitations
“wherein the sync history of the data table further comprises, for each record identifier in the data table an indicator of which……” as the synchronization history of table comprises, for each content item timestamp 806 as content item identifier in the table (Baek: fig. 8, paragraphs 67, paragraphs 125-127; Lee: paragraphs 30-32) a graphical icon 303 as an indicator of author as source from which document is created (Brunet: fig. 3, paragraphs 39-47).
Brunet, Lee, Baek do not explicitly teach limitations
source from which the email originated.
Fo teaches limitations
“source from which the email originated” as message sender or thread header 524 as indicator of user name e.g., Scott Forstall as source from which the email message created (paragraphs 6, 27, fig. 6).
Fo further teaches limitations
“an indicator of which source from which the email originated” as message sender or thread header 524 as indicator of user name e.g., Scott Forstall as source from which the email message created (paragraphs 6, 27, fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fo’s teaching to Brunet’s system to allow a user to view both threaded and non-threaded messages from a single sender in a single view.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohtani (US 20050004926)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM-Y T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4042. The examiner can normally be reached (571) 272 4042.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached at (571) 272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAM Y T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights