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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-29 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 5/23/25 is considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 9/25/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The IDS filed on 9/25/24 has missing pages from sheets 45-99.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-11, 14-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,873,570 (hereinafter Chaudhri). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales.
Chaudhri discloses, accessing at least the user’s application level metadata associated with the one or more specific applications at one or more hardware devices in a first security domain or accessing the user’s application level metadata and data associated with the one or more specific applications at the one or more hardware devices in a first security domain; and providing at least the user’s application level metadata associated with the one or more specific applications to one or more hardware devices of the authenticated buddies or associates in a second security domain, or providing the user’s application level metadata and data associated with the one or more specific applications to the one or more hardware devices of the authenticated buddies or associates in the second security domain (claim 1); creating a community of buddies and associates, including the authenticated buddies or associates, that have a different level of access to the user’s application level metadata associated with the one or more specific applications or to the user’s application level metadata and data associated with the one or more specific applications (claim 2); accessing the user’s application level metadata and data associated with the one or more specific applications is completed without configuring files and file level metadata or data (claim 1); wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least a media content management application (claim 3); wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least a music application (claim 4); wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least an imaging application (claim 8); wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least a picture application (claim 9); wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least a video or a movie application (claim 10); wherein the system further provides the different level of access via a remote Internet based access (claim 13); wherein the buddies comprise trusted buddies (claim 14); wherein the buddies comprise untrusted buddies (claim 15); replicating the accessed, user’s application level metadata or the accessed, user’s application level metadata and data in a second format compatible with a second specific application at the first hardware device, and transmitting the so formatted user’s application level metadata or the so formatted user’s application level metadata and data to one or more other hardware devices in a different security domain (claim 5); receiving application level metadata and data in the second format compatible with the second specific application at the first hardware device from the one or more other hardware devices (claim 6); comparing the accessed user’s application level metadata or the accessed user’s application level metadata and data of the first specific application to application level metadata and data of a second specific application to determine whether the respective application level metadata or the respective application level metadata and data of the two specific applications are synchronized (claim 7); wherein the first specific application comprises a distributed ledger application (claim 11); validating the replication of the user’s application level metadata or the user’s application level metadata and data of the first specific application at the first hardware device (claim 12).
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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 29 are representative. Claim 1 is directed to collecting information (accessing a user’s application-level metadata and/or data), organizing or analyzing the information (determining authenticated buddies or associates and levels of access), and providing or transmitting the information (providing such metadata and/or data to hardware devices across security domains).
Claims 14 and 29 similarly recite accessing application-level metadata and/or data of a specific application or peer application and providing such information to authenticated buddies or associates. These concepts are analogous to those identified by the courts as abstract, including collecting information, analyzing it, and transmitting or displaying results of the analysis, as set forth in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. Accordingly, claims 1-29 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, recite only generic computer components and environments, such as hardware devices, applications, networks, and processors performing conventional information-processing functions (e.g., accessing, providing, transmitting, replicating, validating, comparing, or synchronizing data).
The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they recite a specific technical solution rooted in computer technology. Instead, the claims merely use computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. Limitations directed to particular application contexts (e.g., media applications, music applications, imaging applications, distributed ledger applications, peer applications) are field-of-use limitations and do not impose meaningful constraints on the abstract idea.
Further, limitations reciting “different levels of access,” “trusted or untrusted buddies,” or “remote Internet-based access” describe desired results of information management, rather than a specific technical mechanism for achieving those results. Considering the claim elements as a whole does not add anything beyond the abstract idea itself. Conclusion Accordingly, claims 1–29 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
All dependent claims are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toyama et al. US Patent Publication Number 2004/0070678, hereinafter Toyama.
Referring to claim 1, Toyama discloses a method for providing authenticated buddies or associates of a user access to the user’s application level metadata, or to the metadata and data, associated with one or more specific applications (title, abstract, [0066], [0067], [0077], Toyama discloses allow authenticated buddy to access shared media by using annotated metadata) comprising:
accessing at least the user’s application level metadata associated with the one or more specific applications (software 204c, 206c)([0067] access control is performed by using the metadata to control the search by the requesting client of the index or image/photo database; Figure 2, application level metadata are managed and exchanged at server 202) at one or more hardware devices (client 204) in a first security domain (communication between server 202 and client 204 is viewed as first security domain) or accessing the user’s application level metadata and data associated with the one or more specific applications(software 204c, 206c)([0067] access control is performed by using the metadata to control the search by the requesting client of the index or image/photo database; Figure 2, application level metadata are managed and exchanged at server 202) at the one or more hardware devices (client 204) in a first security domain (communication between server 202 and client 204 is viewed as first security domain); and
providing at least the user’s application level metadata associated with the one or more specific applications ([0067], grant and provide access to the requested user or client based on the associated access level) to one or more hardware devices (client 206) of the authenticated buddies or associates in a second security domain (communication between server 202 and client 206 is viewed as first security domain), or providing the user’s application level metadata and data associated with the one or more specific applications ([0067], grant and provide access to the requested user or client based on the associated access level) to the one or more hardware devices (client 206) of the authenticated buddies or associates in the second security domain (communication between server 202 and client 206 is viewed as first security domain).
Referring to claim 2, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 further comprising creating a community of buddies and associates (buddy list), including the authenticated buddies or associates, that have a different level of access to the user’s application level metadata associated with the one or more specific applications or to the user’s application level metadata and data associated with the one or more specific applications ([0077], The level of privacy assigned to each photograph is stored as metadata and set by the user, with one embodiment providing a default setting of completely private (access by the user only) and alternative default setting of completely public (accessible to all)… require users to authenticate themselves prior to accessing information available over a network).
Referring to claim 3, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein accessing the user’s application level metadata and data associated with the one or more specific applications is completed without configuring files and file level metadata or data ([0024][0067] data access does not involve configuring file and file level metadata or data).
Referring to claim 4, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least a media content management application ([0094][0111], figure 4, image database 202s and image exchange software).
Referring to claim 5, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least a music application ([0011], Napster with audio files refers to music application).
Referring to claim 6, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least an imaging application (title and [0026], photo exchange application).
Referring to claim 7, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least a picture application (title and [0026], photo exchange application).
Referring to claim 8, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least a video or a movie application (abstract, [0004], video application).
Referring to claim 9, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 2 wherein the system further provides the different level of access via a remote Internet based access ([0030][0067][0077] difference level of access is assigned to different buddy for remote Internet based access; [0020] internet based access).
Referring to claim 10, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the buddies comprise trusted buddies ([0067], photos can be private to one person or to the user's entire buddy list).
Referring to claim 11, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the buddies comprise untrusted buddies ([0067], Photos can be private to one person or to the user's entire buddy list; buddies include trusted and untrusted buddies).
Referring to claim 12, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the one or more specific applications is stored at least in an application store or storage and the data comprises applications ([0054], figures 1 and 2, applications/programs are stored in memories/storage).
Referring to claim 13, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 1 wherein the one or more specific applications comprises at least a learning management application and the data accessed comprises private course materials including content generated by the buddies and associates ([0077], photo generated by the user can be viewed as private course material and the photo management application can be viewed as learning management application without further clarification and definition of the learning management application and private course materials data).
Referring to claims 14-17, 21-23, 26-29, the claims encompass the same scope of the invention as that of the claims 1, 2, 4-11. Therefore, claims 14-17, 21-23, 26-29 are rejected on the same ground as the claims 1, 2, 4-11.
Referring to claim 18, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 14 further comprising replicating the accessed, user’s application level metadata or the accessed, user’s application level metadata and data in a second format compatible with a second specific application at the first hardware device, and transmitting the so formatted user’s application level metadata or the so formatted user’s application level metadata and data to one or more other hardware devices in a different security domain (page 13, claim 29, Toyama discloses retrieving the data in a first format and formatting the data to a second format so it can be displayed on the computer in the second security domain).
Referring to claim 19, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 18 further comprising receiving application level metadata and data in the second format compatible with the second specific application at the first hardware device from the one or more other hardware devices (page 13, claim 29, Toyama discloses retrieving the data in a first format and formatting the data to a second format so the requested data can be displayed on the computer in the second security domain is showing the second format compatible with the second specific application ).
Referring to claim 20, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 14 further comprising comparing the accessed user’s application level metadata or the accessed user’s application level metadata and data of the first specific application to application level metadata and data of a second specific application to determine whether the respective application level metadata or the respective application level metadata and data of the two specific applications are synchronized ([0027], All changes to the client's database and index are kept in a change log. Periodically, the client will connect to the central server. When it does, the local database synchronizes with the server's master index. Images are added and subtracted from the server's master index, and metadata is being updated such that the synchronization can be checked by comparing the metadata of the applications).
Referring to claim 25, Toyama discloses the method as in claim 18 further comprising validating the replication of the user’s application level metadata or the user’s application level metadata and data of the first specific application at the first hardware device (page 13, claim 29, Toyama discloses retrieving the data in a first format and formatting the data to a second format so the requested data can be displayed on the computer in the second security domain is showing the second format compatible with the second specific application, the displaying of the second format is viewed as validating the replication of the user’s application level metadata or the user’s application level metadata and data of the first specific application at the first hardware device).
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 of this title, 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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama in view of Kohlhepp et al., US Patent Publication Number 2017/0307387, hereinafter Kohlhepp.
Referring to claim 24, Toyama discloses the method as described in claim 14, Toyama does not discloses wherein the first specific application comprises a distributed ledger application.
Kohlhepp discloses maintain a distributed storage of a distributed ledger which is synchronized among peers (claim 4).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Toyama to implement the synchronized application level metadata and data as a destituted ledger application as taught by Kohlhepp. Both Toyama and Kohlhepp address the same technical program of maintaining consistent, synchronized data among multiple peer devices. Toyama taches synchronization of application level metadata among authenticated peers, while Kohlhepp teaches that a distributed ledger is a known and effective application level data structure for maintaining synchronized state across peers.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Toyama to maintain a consistent and tamper-resistant shared state of application level data among peers as taught by Kohlhepp.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objection made. Applicant must show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANGCHE A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3992. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am to 6:30pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Liang-che Alex Wang
March 9, 2026
/LIANG CHE A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447