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 .
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 1 April 2026, claim(s) 2-15 is/are amended per Applicant’s request. Claim(s) 19 is/are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-18 are presently pending in the application, of which, claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are presented in independent form.
No IDS has been received since the mailing of the last Office action.
The previously raised objection(s) to the claims is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The previously raised 112 rejection of claims 1-18 is maintained, and the separate 112 rejection of claims 9-18 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The previously raised 101 rejection of claim 19 as a signal per se is moot in view of its cancellation, while the 101 rejection of claims 1-18 is maintained.
Examiner’s Note
The rejections below group claims that may not be identical, but whose language and scope are so substantively similar as to lend themselves to grouping, in the interests of clarity and conciseness. Any citation to the instant specification herein is made to the PGPub version (if applicable). The examiner notes that no statement has been entered regarding the inventorship of individual claims as required under 37 CFR 1.56, and therefore assumes that all claims have the same inventorship or are directed to inventions that were commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: They have a comma following the conjunction “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a separate object ID attribute field configured for storing identification information associated with the object” and subsequently states that “wherein the information stored within the object ID attribute field … comprises metadata other than said identification information associated with the at least one object”. It is unclear how these two limitations can simultaneously coexist; either the object ID is configured to store identification information (in which case that is what is stored there) or it is not so configured (in which case something else may be stored there). The other independent claims have corresponding language, and, as neither they nor the dependent claims do anything to cure this deficiency, they are likewise rejected.
Claim 9 recites “by a processor configured to access said at least one object from amongst the plurality of said objects, retrieving from the accessed at least one object at least information stored within an object ID attribute field thereof, thereby to retrieve said metadata”. The recitation of the limitation "the accessed at least one object" has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The processor is said to be configured for access, but no access is stated as having occurred. Claim 9’s dependent claims do nothing to cure this deficiency and are likewise rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 April 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. These arguments are considered in the order they were presented by the applicant.
With respect to the rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 112, the applicant argues that the object ID attribute field comprises metadata without the identification information being present and therefore both limitations can coexist. The examiner respectfully disagrees. If the object ID attribute field is explicitly claimed as being “configured for storing identification information”, then there is a direct contradiction within the claims to say that that field does not store identification information but instead something else is stored there. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained. It is recommended that the applicant simply eliminate the word “configured” from the offending phrase.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, 102, and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 TYLER J TORGRIMSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 5:30 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, Aleksander Kerzhner can be reached at 571.270.1760. 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.
/TYLER J TORGRIMSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights