Response to Amendment
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 action is responsive to amendment filed on 1/27/26. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending.
Summary of the claimed system and the prior art
(See prior art rejection below for details)
Raphael discloses a structure used to identify metadata 406 that describes a particular information asset in information assets 306, (par. 107). This at least describes a structure, metadata, and particular information asset in information assets 306. The metadata includes any valuable information describing the data in a table (pars. 66-67). Raphael further describes that metadata 406 include pointers or links to information assets 306 (par. 107). This segment at least comprises a pointer/link to an asset. The link relates data information to the asset. In addition, Raphael discloses information assets comprise policy (par. 132). The asset information comprising metadata/attribute information about the relevant asset is used to store information about what asset class the asset belongs to (par. 134). Asset class can be interpreted as asset/object configured to be in different categories of execution, or machine types. This combination of information therefore at least comprises the asset configuration parameter, i.e., asset class, and identifies the asset using the metadata and pointers linking to the relevant asset.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,384. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim substantially the same subject matter using broader terminology.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raphael et al (USPN. 2021/0119970) in view of Greenan et al (USPN. 10,027,766).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 18, Raphael discloses a method, system and a non-transitory computer medium comprising a processor and memory storing account and attributes associated with the accounts, the method comprising (figs. 2, 3 and 8, computer system 312, policy enforcement system 302 on assets, par. 144):
accessing, by a computer system, metadata associated with a data asset (figs. 3 and 5, Information assets and metadata, items 306, 308 and 326, policy engine 310, cloud network 504 and par. 66-67, X Product and Catalog);
identifying, by the computer system, based at least in part on the metadata, one or more configuration parameters that uniquely identify the data asset (pars. 67 and 78, asset and asset name, wherein a pointer is used to point to the name of the asset “X Product Customer Data”);
identifying, by the computer system, and based at least in part on the metadata, a type of data structure that maps the data asset to the data object that uniquely identified the data asset (pars. 67 and 78, asset and asset type being “Financial” and access policies, for the asset name “X Product Customer Data” the data access policies and type of asset Financial are in the same structure and are therefore mapped);
identifying, by the computer system, based at least in part on the metadata, one or more attributes of a data object that uniquely identify the data asset (pars. 67 and 78, asset and asset type being “Financial” and access policies, for the asset name “X Product Customer Data”, the asset may be accessed);
generating, by the computer system, a unique external object identifier for the data object associated with the data asset, the unique external object identifier for the data object comprising a set of portions, a first portion of the set of portions comprising the one or more configuration parameters that uniquely identify the data asset, a second portion of the set of portions identifying a schema of the data object that uniquely identifies the type of data structure that maps the data asset to the data object associated with the data asset and a third portion of the set of portions that uniquely identifies the data object associated with the data asset (figs. 3 and 4, par. 107, metadata 406 includes a link to information asset which directly identifies the asset, and tracking changes includes changes to the actual data/attribute of the information asset that comprise configuration parameters, so that tracking is maintained, and par. 134, attribute 702 is predicated upon MD values and part of the link, note that the MD values and attribute 702 comprises portions of sets of portions, comprise the asset class, and include the structure of the asset Financial with customer subsections, see further pars. 66 and 67, wherein sets of information are related and attributes and metadata comprise any valuable data). In further support of additional portions of data, it is well known in the field of relational data structures to interrelate a plurality of relevant information, structures and paths. One such system, Greenan, teaches metadata storing a plurality of columns of data information, directory, policies and table having columns for store ID, store name, storage facility URL, path/directory location, a path, and other columns (fig. 4C, col. 12, lines 29-49, Greenan). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field before the effective filing date to supplement Greenan column information data in Raphael computer system 312 by accounting for additional layers of interrelated data. One would have been motivated to store additional information in columns of data to interrelate additional schema information (fig. 4 C, schema tables, content, attributes and policy, Greenan).
Raphael in view of Greenan teach,
storing, by the computer system, the unique external object identifier for the data object in a repository of the computer system (figs. 8 and 9, items 806 and 900-906, store the information asset with associations for identification/context, Raphael);
determining by the computer system, an update to the data object (fig. 5 pars. 121-125, change to policy descriptor, Raphael);
responsive to the determining, reconciling by the computer system, a state of the data object in the repository using the unique external identifier generated for the data object (fig. 5, pars. 124-128, change to policy descriptor is updated using descriptor timestamps, Raphael); and
transmitting by the computer system, updated information related to the data object (pars. 128-131, policy enforcement points can send an asset identifier to policy engine an information asset for which enforcement of policies is desired, as a result access can be granted or data may be modified based on change, Raphael).
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising: Raphael in view of Greenan teach,receiving, by the computer system, a query related to the data object (fig. 9 and pars. 146-147, search/request for assets, Raphael); responsive to the query, determining, by the computer system, based at least in part the metadata associated with the data object, that the data object is associated with the unique external object identifier (figs. 7-9, pars. 129 and 134, determine, enforce whether the policy descriptors are current and evaluate, and par. 147, object identifier may be built from metadata, Raphael); using, by the computer system, the unique external identifier associated with the data object to retrieve information related to the data object and transmitting, by the computer system, the information related to the data object to a user of an external system, wherein the data object associated with the data asset is part of the external system (fig. 9, item 906, pars. 134, forming partially rules to information asset and pars. 147-148, asset is retrieved based on user context and access by user is allowed, Raphael).
3. The method of claim 2, Raphael in view of Greenan teach, wherein the information related to the data object comprises one or more data values associated with the data object, a description of the data object, or a classification of the data object within the data asset (figs. 1, 3 and 4, par. 52, items 50 and 308, plurality of assets, par. 107, metadata 406 includes a link to information asset which directly identifies the asset, and tracking changes includes changes to the actual data/attribute of the information asset that comprise configuration parameters, so that tracking is maintained on the data values associated with the data object, Raphael).
4. The method of claim 1, Raphael in view of Greenan teach,further comprising responsive to determining the update to the data object, updating, by the computer system, the information related to the data object using the unique external identifier for the data object (figs. 8 and 9, item 808, pars. 116, 119 and 143, update/change to metadata associated with data assets, Raphael);
and transmitting, by the computer system, the updated information related to the data object to a user of an external system, wherein the data object associated with the data asset is part of the external system (fig. 9, item 906, pars. 134, forming partially rules to information asset and pars. 147-148, asset is retrieved based on user context and access by user is allowed, Raphael).
5. The method of claim 1, Raphael in view of Greenan teach, wherein the updated information related to the data object comprises at least one of information related to a change in a name of the data object, information related to a time when the data object was last accessed, modified or refreshed, or information related to the number of times the data object was accessed (figs. 8 and 9, item 808, pars. 116, 119 and 143, update/change to metadata associated with data assets, based on timestamp difference, Raphael).
7. The method of claim 1, Raphael in view of Greenan teach, wherein the one or more configuration parameters comprise at least one of a hostname, a port identifier, an Internet Protocol (IP) address, a service name, a Universal Resource Locator (URL), a resource identifier, or a protocol type associated with the data asset (par. 51, security protection for data and resources, and user portal at least equated to port identifier, Raphael).
8. The method of claim 1, Raphael in view of Greenan teach, wherein the one or more attributes of the data object comprise at least one of an object type, a folder type, a namespace, a path, or an internal identifier of the data object (figs. 5 and 7, par. 134, asset class and the type of attributes, Raphael).
9. The method of claim 1, Raphael in view of Greenan teach, further comprising:
Receiving a query related to the data object (par. 133, input comprises policy descriptor and user context, Raphael); responsive to the query: determining, based at least in part on the metadata associated with the data object, that no unique external identifier exists for the data object (par. 129 and 134, determine, enforce whether the policy descriptors are current and evaluate, and par. 147, object identifier may be built from metadata); and based on the determining, transmitting a request to create the unique external identifier for the data object (fig. 9, item 906, pars. 134, forming partially rules to information asset and pars. 147-148, asset is retrieved based on user context and access by user is allowed, Raphael).
10. The method of claim 1 Raphael in view of Greenan teach, further comprising: using, by the computer system, the unique external identifier associated with the data object to retrieve information related to the data object (fig. 9, item 906, pars. 147-148, asset is retrieved based on user context and asset identifier, Raphael); and transmitting, by the computer system, the information related to the data object to a user of an external system, wherein the data object associated with the data asset is part of the external system (fig. 9, item 906, pars. 147-148, asset is retrieved based on user context and access by user is allowed, Raphael).
17. The system of claim 1, Raphael in view of Greenan teach, wherein the one or more attributes of the data object comprise at least one of an object type, a folder type, a namespace, a path, or an internal identifier of the data object (figs. 5 and 7, par. 134, asset class and the type of attributes, see also paths, Raphael).
Regarding system claims 12-16 and medium claims 19 and 20, they comprise substantially the same subject matter as method claims 1-5, 7-10 and are therefore rejected to on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See comments below.
Applicant’s request to hold the Double Patenting rejection until all other issues are resolved is granted.
Applicant alleges that the generated unique external object identifier and metadata is different than Raphael’s catalog.
In response, the updated office action, Raphael in view of Greenan teach an extended catalog table 404 as a data structure that stores/organizes metadata for information assets and includes links (par. 107). Metadata 406 includes a link to information asset which directly identifies the asset, and tracking changes includes changes to the actual data/attribute of the information asset that comprise configuration parameters, so that tracking is maintained. All the features of the claimed Identifier are present in Raphael structure comprising a link with any relevant metadata. In addition, Greenan accounts for many additional metadata columns information types which renders the claims obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the field of data processing:
USPN 2021/0297451 -> Abstract
USPN 2023/0195806 -> par. 27, catalogs and schema
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCIN R FILIPCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-4019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 EST.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached on 571-272-8352. 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.
February 25, 2026
/MARCIN R FILIPCZYK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153