DETAILED 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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on January 27, 2026, in which claim 20 was canceled and claims 1-19 are presenting for further examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Remark
After further reviewed Applicant’s arguments (pages 3-4), filed on January 27, 2026, in light of the original specification, it is conceivable that the applicant’s arguments overcome the rejection under 35 USC 103 set forth in the last office action (mailed on October 31, 2025). Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection set forth in the last office action has been withdrawn.
However, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejected set for the in the last office action, the amended claims to add a file system and computer components does not provide a specific, technological solution that improves the functioning of a computer or a technical field. It is also not integrated into a practical application with concrete benefits. The claim is viewed as a whole not directed to a solution of a “technological problem,” nor is it directed to an improvement in computer or network functionality. Instead, the claimed element claims the abstract idea through the use of conventional devices, without offering any technological means of effecting that concept. Furthermore, the file system and computer components added to the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components, and use as a tool to perform an existing process, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. The 35 USC 101 rejection is hereby sustained.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
At Step 1:
With respect to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it is determined that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitation “determining by the at least a first computer new values for at least some of the plurality of metadata elements associated with the data element” in claim 1, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “determining by the at least a first computer new values for at least some of the plurality of metadata elements associated with the data element”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining by the at least a first computer new values for at least some of the plurality of metadata elements associated with the data element ”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine metadata elements associated with the data element.
The limitation “automatically with the at least a computer, determining for the data access a value for each of a plurality of data, the plurality of metadata elements having previously determined values stored in association with the data element, the determined value based on the data access and at least a previously determined value of the previously determined values” in claim 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “automatically with the at least a computer, determining for the data access a value for each of a plurality of data, the plurality of metadata elements having previously determined values stored in association with the data element, the determined value based on the data access and at least a previously determined value of the previously determined values”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “automatically with the at least a computer, determining for the data access a value for each of a plurality of data, the plurality of metadata elements having previously determined values stored in association with the data element, the determined value based on the data access and at least a previously determined value of the previously determined values”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine metadata elements having previously determined values stored in association with the data element.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “storing first data within a file system comprising a data store, the first data provided from at least a first computer” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “storing electronically within the file system first metadata comprising a plurality of metadata elements in association with the first data” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “accessing with the at least a first computer a data element within the file system, the data element within the first data and within the data store to form a data access” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “storing by the at least a first computer within the file system the new values for at least some of the plurality of metadata elements as further metadata in conjunction with the first metadata to collectively result in the metadata, the new values other than overwriting existing values of metadata elements within the first metadata” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “storing with the at least a computer the value for each of the plurality of metadata elements absent overwriting the previously determined values stored in association with the data element within the first metadata as metadata” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “accessing …." step identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "storing ……." steps identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in displaying information as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-18 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “determining a trend associated with the data access based on the new value for at least some of the plurality of metadata elements in conjunction with the metadata”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the trend is indicative of a pattern of data access to the data element by different users within a network of users, the trend used for detecting a missing element of a trend and for reminding at least one user about the missing element”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the trend is indicative of a pattern of data access to the data element by a search query, the search performed on a dataset comprising the data element”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites “wherein execution of the search query relies, in part, on the metadata”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the metadata is anonymized and contains inter-relations between data elements of the first data, the relations useful for statistical analysis”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites “storing the metadata in association with the data, the metadata for use by the file system in association with accessing the first data”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for storing the metadata in association with the data, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the first metadata comprises at least one of relational data and interaction data stored therein and relating to at least one of the first data, the metadata and external data external to the first data”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the first metadata comprises at least relational data stored therein and relating to at least one relational aspect between data elements within at least one of the first data, the metadata and external data external to the first data”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first metadata comprises at least one of relational data and interaction data stored therein and relating to first external data external to the first data and to the first data store”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites “storing second metadata within the file system comprising the first data store comprising a plurality of second metadata elements in association with second data stored on a second data store other than the data store”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for storing the metadata in association with the data, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 12 recites “storing second data within a second data store, the second data store separated from the first data store by a security firewall; storing second metadata within the second data store, the second metadata comprising a plurality of second metadata elements in association with second data stored on the second data store; and providing a transform for transforming the second metadata to form transformed metadata, the transformed metadata for being used by processes with the first metadata and for accessing one of the first data and data derived therefrom”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for storing second metadata within the second data store, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 13 recites “providing a transform for transforming the first metadata to form transformed metadata, the transformed metadata for being used by processes for accessing at least one of the first data and data derived therefrom”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for providing a transform for transforming the first metadata to form transformed metadata, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the processes are in execution on processing systems having access to the transformed metadata via a security process, the security process preventing the processes from having access to all of the first data”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for processing systems having access to the transformed metadata via a security process, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the first metadata comprises context data, the context data associating a subset of the first metadata with one of a user and a group of users”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the first metadata comprises data relating a location from which data access to at least a data element occurred”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the first metadata comprises a multidimensional set of metadata having multiple dimensions and analysable within a single dimension or within a plurality of dimensions of the multiple dimensions”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the first metadata is formed using a correlation engine”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240184751 (involved in identifying a first set of file metadata elements for a first file associated with a node in a hierarchy of data, and a second set of file metadata elements for a second file associated with the node, where the first file comprises structured data or semi-structured data. The processor identifies common file metadata elements among the first set of file metadata elements and the second set of file metadata elements, and determines whether the common file metadata elements represent a data set comprising the first file and the second file. The processor generates a data set identifier based on the common file metadata elements, where the data set identifier comprises a hash. The processor associates the node with the data set identifier. A memory is coupled to the processor and enabled to provide the processor with instructions.)
US 8,412,926 (involved in receiving data and metadata elements at a device. Metadata elements is associated with the data and embedded within the data. Metadata elements are extracted from received data by the device. Multiple extracted metadata elements are selected. Selected multiple extracted metadata elements are modified. Encryption key encoded within associated metadata elements. Receiving device is enabled to decrypt encrypted data using encoded encryption key within metadata elements. Encrypted data and associated metadata elements are transferred to receiving device by the device).
US 20130177153 (involved in extracting metadata elements associated with data received by an encrypting device. A particular metadata element of the metadata elements is selected. The particular metadata element is modified to form a modified metadata element by modifying permissions of the particular metadata element. An encryption key is generated based on the modified metadata element. The data is encrypted based on the encryption key to obtain encrypted data. The encrypted data is transmitted, where the encryption key includes the modified metadata element).
US 20240289304 and US 12,386,791 (involved in determining that a set of sibling nodes in a hierarchy of data are associated with a common data set identifier. The processor determines a new node for which metadata elements of files of the new node are to be scanned. The new node is associated with the identifier without scanning the files in response to a determination that the set of the sibling nodes meets heuristic scanning criteria. A set of memories is coupled to the processors, and provides the processors with instructions. The processors generate the identifier based on common file metadata elements associated with files. The first node is associated with the common data set identifier).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 April 6, 2026