DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 have been amended to include “and requesting verification from the user device on completeness of the electronic container file; upon receiving verification from the user device, granting access to the electronic container file to the second user device”. The remarks indicate that pars. 56-57 of the application as filed provide support for the amendments. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Par. 56 describes reminding users about metadata items that may be incomplete, reminding users to verify that metadata items that appear complete are in fact complete, sending a message and querying a creator to ensure no co-collaborators have been left off of the information collected. Reminding a user about something is not the same as the above-mentioned requesting, receiving and granting limitations. Furthermore, querying a creator to ensure no co-collaborators have been left off of the information collected has nothing to do with requesting, receiving and granting as claimed. The limitation requires that the user affirmatively send back a verification in response to a request, the verification being used to trigger a downstream action. This is not present in this paragraph. Par. 57 only explains what different levels of completeness mean; it says nothing about the amendments.
Pars. 59 and 73 disclose asking a user for verification and allowing a user to over-ride a safeguard. However, these portions of the application also do not disclose the specific sequence recited in the amendments.
All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
Independent claims 1 and 12 include:
analyzing an electronic container file in which content and a first metadata are stored, and identifying items of metadata specified for the content based on an identified content type of the content. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claim encompasses a user simply identifying and/or thinking about metadata items pertaining to a content type based on the content type of content and one piece of metadata using his/her mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
determining whether second metadata corresponding to the content type is missing from the electronic container file where the content and first metadata are stored. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claim encompasses a user identifying and thinking about missing metadata. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
upon determining that the second metadata is missing from the electronic container file, automatically generating […] an electronic message […]. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claim encompasses a user thinking about and/or manually creating a message. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
when the content is accessed by a second user device, automatically performing an electronic comparison of the first metadata and the second metadata based on a stored specification associated with the content type to determine if any content is missing or needs to be updated. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a second user device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a second user device” language, the claim encompasses a user comparing, using his/her mind, metadata to determine if content is missing or needs updating. The mere nominal recitation of “by a second user device” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recited additional element limitations:
[…] transmitting an electronic message to a user device to request that the user device provide the missing second-metadata to the electronic container file. This step is recited at a high level of generality and does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of identifying and thinking about missing metadata and/or missing content, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
upon receiving the missing second metadata, from the user device, automatically storing the received second metadata in the electronic container file and requesting verification from the user device on completeness of the electronic container file; upon receiving verification from the user device, granting access to the electronic container file to the second user device. This step is recited at a high level of generality and does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of identifying and thinking about missing metadata and/or missing content, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment. The same applies here. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 the determining, marking covers performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receiving and storing, stored are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 18 the determine, triggering, upending, checking, tracking cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 7, 9, 11, 17, 19, 20 storing, receiving, transferring, informing, prompting are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraytem et al., Pub. No.: US 20190286646 A1, hereinafter Kraytem.
As per claim 1, Kraytem discloses A method for content management, comprising:
analyzing an electronic container file in which content and a first metadata are stored, and identifying items of metadata specified for the content based on an identified content type of the content (see at least par. 41 which discloses observing content of specific types and a particular metadata element to identify other metadata elements that pertain to the type of content);
determining whether second metadata corresponding to the content type is missing from the electronic container file where the content and first metadata are stored (see rejection above as well as at least par. 48 and note that missing and/or incorrect metadata from a container of the specific type of stored data is identified);
upon determining that the second metadata is missing from the electronic container file, automatically generating and transmitting an electronic message to a user device to request that the user device provide the missing second-metadata to the electronic container file (pars. 15, 18, 21, 41 41, 64 wherein a GUI displays which metadata is missing for a user to provide it);
upon receiving the missing second metadata, from the user device, automatically storing the received second metadata in the electronic container file (see pars. cited above including at least pars. 48, 91, 107) and requesting verification from the user device on completeness of the electronic container file (pars. 72-73 disclose a confirmation button that is pressed to verify completeness; see also, par. 84);
upon receiving verification from the user device, granting access to the electronic container file to the second user device (further to the rejection of the previous limitation, par. 86 discloses dynamically reflecting a user’s enrichment activities (confirmation button is pressed) on another user’s GUI); and
when the content is accessed by a second user device, automatically performing an electronic comparison of the first metadata and the second metadata based on a stored specification associated with the content type to determine if any content is missing or needs to be updated (pars. 34, 86, 119 disclose that multiple users identify missing metadata; pars. 66-68 disclose that when a newly accessible record (data item 108/record 115) is accessed by any user (i.e. content is accessed by a second user device), the metadata of the record is analyzed / categorized / presented (i.e. automatically perform /trigger a comparison of all metadata) to identify missing metadata which is presented in fig. 1B, item 124 and/or item 126. Note that pars. 85-86 disclose that metadata is part of the data and fig.’s 3A-3C illustrate that the data of the records is the metadata (i.e. determination of missing content is the same as determining missing metadata). Pars. 50-52, 58, 63, 66, 75, 108, 109 disclose multiple alternative examples of a stored specification associated with the content type).
As per claim 2, Kraytem discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the second metadata corresponding to the content is missing (pars. 64-68, 91, 107); receiving the identified item of specified metadata from a custodian of the content (pars. 64-68, 91, 107); and storing the second metadata to the container (pars. 64-68, 91, 107).
As per claim 3, Kraytem discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising: when all items of metadata specified for the content are stored, marking the content as complete (pars. 61, 82, 84).
As per claim 4, Kraytem discloses the method of claim 3, wherein multiple levels of completeness are defined, and marking the content as complete comprises marking the content as complete for a given level of completeness based on content items included with the content (par. 61).
As per claim 5, Kraytem discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: periodically checking to determine whether the second metadata corresponding to the content is stored in addition to triggering the comparison when the content is accessed by the second user device (at least pars. 12, 15, 86, 102 disclose that when multiple users access a record, the metadata of the record is analyzed, categorized, presented (i.e. trigger a comparison of all metadata) and that one user’s (stored/completed) enrichment of metadata causes automatic/dynamic updates to other users’ UI (i.e. periodically checking to provide real time, instantaneous updates)).
As per claim 7, Kraytem discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the second metadata by storing a link to the second metadata (see at least pars. 110-115).
As per claim 8, Kraytem discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: checking the second metadata to confirm that the second metadata corresponds to the content type corresponding to the content (pars. 41, 98-101 wherein one example of the claimed checking is done via AI/ML techniques).
As per claim 10, Kraytem discloses The method of claim 9, further comprising: tracking access information comprising an identity of a person who accessed the content (pars. 85, 87 disclose an audit trail).
As per claim 11, Kraytem discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: informing a creator of the content that the content is complete (at least pars. 60-62 inform the users (i.e. creators) who partake in ensuring that the “content is complete” via enrichments, which data items are complete and which are not).
As per claims 12-18, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected. See Kraytem pars. 120-127 for the system of claim 12.
As per claim 20, Kraytem discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: prompting a user to supply missing or other metadata that needs to be updated corresponding to the content (fig. 1B, pars. 41, 64-68, 91, 107)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraytem in view of US 20020087224 A1, hereinafter Barile.
As per claim 6, Kraytem discloses the method of claim 1. Kraytem does not disclose however Barile in the related field of endeavor of metadata management discloses wherein the content is a standard audio file and the method further comprises upending the metadata to the standard audio file and maintaining backward compatibility with existing audio players (Braile, pars. 4-9, 13-15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Brailes teaching would have allowed Kraytems method to automatically concatenate audio metadata to an audio file in order to allow the song and its metadata to be accessible via existing, non-display based audio players. Par. 8 says “One disadvantage of the current state of the art is that the meta-data is typically available in a display-compatible format, but not an audio compatible format. In other words, the meta-data often comprises text or other data types which display well, but don't play well (or at all) on speakers. Thus, in order to learn details about the content of an audio file, the user must either play the audio file (to know what song it is), or read the meta-data from a display device. This is dis-advantageous to sight-challenged users. Further, the devices which store and render digital audio files (such as portable MP3 players) may necessarily include displays, which can add to the cost and size of the devices.”.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraytem in view of Eber et al., Pub. No.: US 20170099149 A1, hereinafter Eber.
As per claim 9, Kraytem discloses The method of claim 1. Kraytem does not disclose however Eber in the related field of endeavor of file metadata management discloses further comprising: receiving a request by a custodian of the content to share the content and first and second metadata with an intended recipient; and transferring the content and first and second metadata to an intended recipient (Eber, pars. 30, 33, 37).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Ebers teaching would have allowed Kraytems method to “…use pristine versions to make necessary copies as the owner shares and sends the file to others. The stored version will preferably be a pristine version, as it is preferable not to apply a watermark to a previously watermarked version (to watermark a watermark). The pristine files can be used each time a request is made for a new “instance” of a song: the file will be copied, decrypted, watermarked, transcoded, encrypted, and sent to a recipient or user.” (Ebers, par. 30).
Claim 19 is likewise rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments on page 8 of the remarks are unpersuasive. Applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
229
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed steps of identifying missing metadata based on content type, prompting a user to supply it, receiving and storing it, and then granting access upon verification amount to a workflow that parallels what a user already does manually such as looking at a checklist, asking for missing items, receiving them, confirming completeness, and then sharing the file. Furthermore, automated execution does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claimed “specific algorithm” is not specific because it fails to describe a particular technical mechanism for how metadata completeness is evaluated, how container files are structured, how access is granted, etc. The claimed “specific algorithm” only describes the occurrence of these functional outcomes.
Arguments directed to McRO are unpersuasive because the claims recite no specific technical rules or mechanisms that produce a technologically distinct result. The claims recite results that are functional in nature with no details about a particular, unconventional technical implementation.
Regarding the prior art rejection, the remarks on page 10 argue that Kraytem does not disclose the amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation “requesting verification from the user device on completeness of the electronic container file” is taught by Kraytem. at pars. 72-73 which disclose that a confirmation button is pressed by a user to verify completeness; see also, par. 84. Regarding the limitation “upon receiving verification from the user device, granting access to the electronic container file to the second user device” par. 86 discloses subsequently dynamically reflecting a user’s enrichment activities on another user’s GUI (i.e. access granted as claimed in response to confirmation receipt).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154