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 .
Priority
The applicants claim priority to a number of applications. This application is a continuation of U.S. application, Serial No. 18/200,700, filed on 23 May 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. application, Serial No. 17/344,483, filed on 10 June 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. application, Serial No. 16/047,126, filed on 27 July 2018, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application, Serial No. 15/276,001, filed on 26 September 2016, now U.S. Patent 10,042,898, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application, Serial No. 14/936,178, filed on 09 November 2015, now U.S. Patent No. 9,633,028, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application, Serial No. 14/489,15 1, filed on 17 September 2014, now U.S. Patent 9,183,220, which is a continuation of U.S. application, Serial No. 14/147,233, now U.S. Patent No. 9,128,954, filed on 03 January 2014, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application, Serial No. 13/486,630, now U.S. Patent No. 8,626,792, filed on 01 June 2012, which is a continuation of U.S. application, Serial No. 12/47 1,938, filed on 26 May 2009, now U.S. Patent No. 8,209,358, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application, Serial No. 11/801,296, filed on 09 May 2007, now U.S. Patent No. 7,720,869. However independent claims recites concepts not disclosed in many of the previous applications and U.S. application Serial No. 18/200,700, filed on 23 May 2023, is the oldest case reciting concepts of independent claims and therefore instant application will be granted an effective filing date of 5/23/2023
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of app no: 18200700 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the similar limitations to produce the same end result.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The instant application and the referenced copending application are claiming common subject matter, for illustration purposes only the method claims are shown below:
Instant Application
18200700
1. A computer-implemented method of storing and searching data in an existing first hierarchical structure on a non-transitory computer recordable storage medium, the method comprising:
assigning with a data processor a plurality of user-defined metalabels to the data, wherein more than one datum of the data is assigned a same user-defined metalabel;
the data processor creating additional hierarchical structures organized as a function of the assigned metalabels, wherein the additional hierarchical structures exist simultaneously with the first hierarchical structure, and wherein the more than one datum assigned the same user- defined metalabel are included in a same additional hierarchical structure;
storing the one or more additional hierarchical file structures on the non-transitory computer recordable storage medium or a second non-transitory computer recordable storage medium associated with the data processor; and
automatically updating the additional hierarchical file structures with the data processor when any datum of the data is moved, modified, copied, or deleted;
wherein each metalabel comprises a node in the additional hierarchical file structures and further comprising searching the additional hierarchical file structures by:
identifying child nodes at each node having a search term;
recursively searching and ordering the child nodes; and
reporting as search results the metalabels or corresponding data according to the ordering.
2. The method of Claim 1, further comprising the data processor linking each of the plurality of user-defined metalabels.
15. The method of Claim 1, further comprising ranking the child nodes as a function of a search term
1. A computer-implemented method of organizing a plurality of data items in an existing first hierarchical structure on a non-transitory computer recordable storage medium, the method comprising: assigning with a data processor a plurality of user-defined metalabels to at least two data items, wherein more than one of the data items is assigned a same user-defined metalabel; the data processor creating one or more additional hierarchical structures organized as a function of the assigned metalabels, wherein the one or more additional hierarchical structures exist simultaneously with the first hierarchical structure,and wherein more than one of the plurality of data items is assigned a same user- defined metalabel are included in the same additional hierarchical structure;the data processor linking each of the plurality of user-defined metalabels to a corresponding data item; storing the one or more additional hierarchical file structures on the non-transitory computer recordable storage medium or a second non-transitory computer recordable storage medium associated with the data processor; and automatically updating the hierarchical file structures with the data processor when any of the plurality of data items is moved, modified, copied, or deleted.
12. The method of Claim 3, wherein each metalabel comprises a node in the plurality of hierarchical structures and the automatically organizing and/or filtering searches comprises: identifying child nodes at each node having a search term; ranking the child nodes as a function of the search term; recursively searching and ordering the child nodes as a function of the ranking; and reporting as search results the metalabels according to the ordering.
3. The method of Claim 1 where the data comprises files, photos, web site members, or web pages
2. The method of Claim 1 where a data item is a file, web site member, or web page.
4. The method of Claim 1 further comprising:
automatically and individually weighting each of the user-defined metalabels as a function of a relevance of the at least one searchable term found in the corresponding data;
automatically associating the corresponding weighting with each of the user- defined metalabels; and
automatically organizing and/or filtering searches of the metalabels using the weighting.
3. The method of Claim 1 with the method automatically and individually weighting each of the user-defined metalabels as a function of a relevance of the at least one searchable term found in the corresponding data items; automatically associating the corresponding weighting with each of the user-defined metalabels; and
automatically organizing and/or filtering searches of the metalabels using the weighting.
5. The method of Claim 4, wherein the relevance is determined from a dynamic importance vector.
4. The method of Claim 3, wherein the relevance is determined from a dynamic importance vector.
6. The method of Claim 5, wherein the importance vector is based upon user metalabel access frequency
5. The method of Claim 4, wherein the importance vector is based upon user metalabel access frequency.
7. The method of Claim 4, wherein weighting each of the user-defined metalabels further comprises providing each of the metalabels with a corresponding static term matrix.
6. The method of Claim 3, wherein weighting each of the user- defined metalabels as a function of a relevance of the at least one term further comprises providing each of the metalabels with a corresponding static term matrix.
8. The method of Claim 4, wherein weighting each of the user-defined metalabels as a function of a relevance of the at least one term comprises providing each of the metalabels with a corresponding static term matrix.
7. The method of Claim 3, wherein weighting each of the user- defined metalabels as a function of a relevance of the at least one term comprises providing each of the metalabels with a corresponding static term matrix.
9 The method of Claim 8, wherein the corresponding term matrix comprises a frequency of the at least one term for the each of the metalabels
8. The method of Claim 7, wherein the corresponding term matrix comprises a frequency of the at least one term for the each of the metalabels.
10. The method of Claim 8, wherein each metalabel comprises a node in the plurality of hierarchical structures, each node includes the corresponding term matrix,
and an internal node in the plurality of hierarchical structures comprises a combined matrix from corresponding child nodes
9. The method of Claim 7, wherein each metalabel comprises a node in the plurality of hierarchical structures, and each node includes the corresponding term matrix.
10. The method of Claim 9, wherein an internal node in the plurality of hierarchical structures comprises a combined matrix from corresponding child nodes.
11. The method of Claim 4, further comprising automatically weighting the each of the user-defined metalabels as a function of a frequency of the at least one term in a corresponding data
11. The method of Claim 3, further comprising automatically weighting the each of the user-defined metalabels as a function of a frequency of the at least one term in a corresponding data items.
12. The method of Claim 4, wherein a datum is assigned two different user- defined metalabels each having a different weighting
14. The method of Claim 3, wherein one of the plurality of data items is assigned two different user-defined metalabels each having a different weighting.
13. The method of Claim 4, further comprising ordering a display of metalabels as a function of weighting values
16. The method of Claim 3, further comprising ordering a display of metalabels as a function of weighting values.
14. The method of Claim 4, wherein the relevance is further determined from a dynamic importance vector as a function of user metalabel access
17. The method of Claim 3, wherein the relevance is further determined from a dynamic importance vector as a function of user metalabel access.
16. The method of Claim 15, wherein the search results comprises a lexicographic ordering of the metalabels and data.
13. The method of Claim 12, wherein the search results comprises a lexicographic ordering of the metalabels and data items.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 15, 17-20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton et al. US2007/0156636 in view of Apple, "Apple to Ship Mac OS X "Tiger" on April 29, April 12, 2005 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/04/12Apple-to-Ship-Mac-OS-X-Tiger-on-April-29/ in view of Papakonstantinou et al. US2007/0192306
Regarding claim 1, Norton teaches: assigning with a data processor a plurality of user-defined metalabels to the data, wherein more than one datum of the data is assigned a same user-defined metalabel; (Norton see paragraph 0046 0056 0057 by CPU, user to assign annotations to web pages for example thumbs up thumbs down to create a list of favored results. Web pages reads on data, user annotations reads on metalabels, a list of favored thumbs up results reads on more than one datum having the same metalabel)
the data processor creating additional hierarchical structures organized as a function of the assigned metalabels, wherein the additional hierarchical structures exist simultaneously with the first hierarchical structure, and wherein the more than one datum assigned the same user- defined metalabel are included in a same additional hierarchical structure; (Norton see paragraph 0004 0046 0052 0060 0087 0179 by CPU, search queries using pre created page indexes ranking pages within a hierarchical structure, user annotation or tags are defined as a hierarchy or in a page index such that results to a query utilize and are based on a page index and user annotations. Page index and user defined tags in a hierarchy reads on additional file structures, pre created page indexes reads on first file structure, using both for search reads on simultaneous existing and files assigned a same metalabel)
recursively searching (Norton see paragraph 0191 iterative searching and filtering)
reporting as search results the metalabels or corresponding data according to the ordering. (Norton see paragraph 0056 0058 ranked search results presented to user in search results page)
Norton does not distinctly disclose: storing the one or more additional hierarchical file structures on the non-transitory computer recordable storage medium or a second non-transitory computer recordable storage medium associated with the data processor; and
automatically updating the additional hierarchical file structures with the data processor when any datum of the data is moved, modified, copied, or deleted
wherein each metalabel comprises a node in the additional hierarchical file structures and further comprising searching the additional hierarchical file structures by:
identifying child nodes at each node having a search term;
searching and ordering the child nodes; and
However, Apple teaches: storing the one or more additional hierarchical file structures on the non-transitory computer recordable storage medium or a second non-transitory computer recordable storage medium associated with the data processor; and
automatically updating the additional hierarchical file structures with the data processor when any datum of the data is moved, modified, copied, or deleted (Apple see pages 1-4 on computer with processor and apple developed Mac operating system X Tiger, using spotlight files are organized and searched based on metadata or content inside the documents such as in email or itunes and automatically updates whenever files change. Spotlight organized files reads on additional structures, changes to files reads on electronic files modified)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention was made to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton to include updating a structure of tags as taught by Apple for the predictable result of more efficiently performing searches using metadata and content within the system by updating structures used to perform search when files are updated.
Further, the combination of Norton and Apple does not appear to distinctly disclose: wherein each metalabel comprises a node in the additional hierarchical file structures and further comprising searching the additional hierarchical file structures by:
identifying child nodes at each node having a search term;
searching and ordering the child nodes; and
However, Papakonstantinou teaches: wherein each metalabel comprises a node in the additional hierarchical file structures and further comprising searching the additional hierarchical file structures by:
identifying child nodes at each node having a search term; (Papakonstantinou see paragraph 0046 0061 0066 0121 each node containing keywords where nodes can be a child in a hierarchal graph)
searching and ordering the child nodes; and (Papakonstantinou see paragraph 0012 0046 0086 0121 initial ranking for iterative processing, final score of a node to be determined through combining object ranks where nodes can be a child in a hierarchal graph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton to include ranking child nodes in a hierarchal graph as taught by Papakonstantinou for the predictable result of more efficiently performing searches.
Regarding claim 2, Norton as modified further teaches: further comprising the data processor linking each of the plurality of user-defined metalabels. (Norton see paragraph 0046 0056-0060 by CPU, user annotations for a web page)
Regarding claim 3, Norton as modified further teaches: where the data comprises files, photos, web site members, or web pages. (Norton see paragraph 0046 0056 0057 by CPU, Web pages)
Regarding claim 4, Norton as modified further teaches: automatically and individually weighting each of the user-defined metalabels as a function of a relevance of the at least one searchable term found in the corresponding data;
automatically associating the corresponding weighting with each of the user- defined metalabels; and (Norton see paragraph 0075 0094 fields of annotations or tags by a user to include trust weights such that weights reflect a relative degree of confidence)
automatically organizing and/or filtering searches of the metalabels using the weighting. (Norton see paragraph 0214 inferred ratings based on weights to be use to rank search hits)
Regarding claim 15, Norton as modified further teaches: further comprising ranking the child nodes as a function of a search term. (Papakonstantinou see paragraph 0046 0061 0066 0121 initially ranking each node containing keywords where nodes can be a child in a hierarchal graph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton to include ranking child nodes in a hierarchal graph as taught by Papakonstantinou for the predictable result of more efficiently performing searches.
Regarding claims 17-20, note the rejection of claim(s) 1-4 and 15. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under same prior-art teachings.
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 14 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton et al. US2007/0156636 in view of Apple, "Apple to Ship Mac OS X "Tiger" on April 29, April 12, 2005 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/04/12Apple-to-Ship-Mac-OS-X-Tiger-on-April-29/ in view of Papakonstantinou et al. US2007/0192306 in view of Endo et al. US2003/0103675
Regarding claim 5, Norton as modified does not teach: wherein the relevance is determined from a dynamic importance vector
Endo teaches: wherein the relevance is determined from a dynamic importance vector. (Endo see paragraph 0023 0074 label features expressing words expressed in vector form with weight determining significance assigned based on frequency)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton to include ranking child nodes in a hierarchal graph as taught by Endo for the predictable result of more efficiently performing searches.
Regarding claim 6, Norton as modified further teaches: wherein the importance vector is based upon user metalabel access frequency. (Endo see paragraph 0023 0074 label features expressing words expressed in vector form with weight determining significance assigned based on frequency)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton to include ranking child nodes in a hierarchal graph as taught by Endo for the predictable result of more efficiently performing searches.
Regarding claim 14, Norton as modified does not teach: wherein the relevance is further determined from a dynamic importance vector as a function of user metalabel access
Endo teaches: wherein the relevance is further determined from a dynamic importance vector as a function of user metalabel access. (Endo see paragraph 0023 0074 label features expressing words expressed in vector form with weight determining significance assigned based on frequency)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton to include ranking child nodes in a hierarchal graph as taught by Endo for the predictable result of more efficiently performing searches.
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, 12 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton et al. US2007/0156636 in view of Apple, "Apple to Ship Mac OS X "Tiger" on April 29, April 12, 2005 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/04/12Apple-to-Ship-Mac-OS-X-Tiger-on-April-29/ in view of Papakonstantinou et al. US2007/0192306 in view of Waelti et al. US2007/0282598
Regarding claim 7, Norton as modified does not teach: wherein weighting each of the user-defined metalabels further comprises providing each of the metalabels with a corresponding static term matrix.
Waelti teaches: wherein weighting each of the user-defined metalabels further comprises providing each of the metalabels with a corresponding static term matrix. (Waelti see paragraph 0033 0039 0042 taxon nodes to have synsets, weighting parameters based on frequency of terms and agglomerates forming an n dimensional content space where agglomerates read on term matrix)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton as modified to include hierarchal nodes and agglomerates used for search as taught by Waelti for the predictable result of more efficiently being able to search using terms.
Regarding claim 8, Norton as modified does not teach: wherein weighting each of the user-defined metalabels as a function of a relevance of the at least one term comprises providing each of the metalabels with a corresponding static term matrix
Waelti teaches: wherein weighting each of the user-defined metalabels as a function of a relevance of the at least one term comprises providing each of the metalabels with a corresponding static term matrix. (Waelti see paragraph 0033 0039 0042 taxon nodes to have synsets, weighting parameters based on frequency of terms and agglomerates forming an n dimensional content space where agglomerates read on term matrix)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton as modified to include hierarchal nodes and agglomerates used for search as taught by Waelti for the predictable result of more efficiently being able to search using terms.
Regarding claim 9, Norton as modified teaches: wherein the corresponding term matrix comprises a frequency of the at least one term for the each of the metalabels. (Waelti see paragraph 0033 0039 0042 synset linked to agglomerates determines relevance based on frequency of terms)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton as modified to include hierarchal nodes and agglomerates used for search as taught by Waelti for the predictable result of more efficiently being able to search using terms.
Regarding claim 11, Norton further teaches: user-defined metalabels (Norton see paragraph 0056 0060 user annotations or keywords or labels frequently applied stored in index)
Norton as modified does not teach: further comprising automatically weighting the each of the metalabels as a function of a frequency of the at least one term in a corresponding data
Waelti teaches: further comprising automatically weighting the each of the metalabels as a function of a frequency of the at least one term in a corresponding data (Waelti see paragraph 0033 0039 0042 synset linked to agglomerates determines relevance based on frequency of terms)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton as modified to include hierarchal nodes and agglomerates used for search as taught by Waelti for the predictable result of more efficiently being able to search using terms.
Regarding claim 12, Norton further teaches: user-defined metalabels (Norton see paragraph 0056 0060 user annotations or keywords or labels frequently applied stored in index)
Norton as modified does not teach: wherein a datum is assigned two different metalabels each having a different weighting.
Waelti teaches: wherein a datum is assigned two different metalabels each having a different weighting. (Waleti see paragraph 0013 0014 each record to have variable factor for weighting terms and weight parameters)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton as modified to include hierarchal nodes and agglomerates used for search as taught by Waelti for the predictable result of more efficiently being able to search using terms.
Claim(s) 10 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton et al. US2007/0156636 in view of Apple, "Apple to Ship Mac OS X "Tiger" on April 29, April 12, 2005 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/04/12Apple-to-Ship-Mac-OS-X-Tiger-on-April-29/ in view of Papakonstantinou et al. US2007/0192306 in view of Waelti et al. US2007/0282598 in view of Shimogori US2004/0267796
Regarding claim 10, Norton further teaches: wherein each metalabel comprises a node in the structures, each node includes the corresponding term matrix, (Waelti see paragraph 0033 0039 0042 taxon nodes to have synsets, weighting parameters based on frequency of terms and agglomerates forming an n dimensional content space where agglomerates read on term matrix)
and an internal node in the structures comprises a combined matrix from corresponding child nodes. (Waelti see paragraph 0048 taxon nodes to be clustered identifying a mother node for the agglomeration cluster where each cluster with all the synsets is associated with one axis in n-dimensional space)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton as modified to include hierarchal nodes and agglomerates used for search as taught by Waelti for the predictable result of more efficiently being able to search using terms.
Norton as modified does not teach: plurality of hierarchical structures
Shimogori teaches: plurality of hierarchical structures (Shimogori see paragraph 0170 plurality of hierarchical structures storing data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton as modified to include plurality of hierarchal structures as taught by Shimogori for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Claim(s) 13 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton et al. US2007/0156636 in view of Apple, "Apple to Ship Mac OS X "Tiger" on April 29, April 12, 2005 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/04/12Apple-to-Ship-Mac-OS-X-Tiger-on-April-29/ in view of Papakonstantinou et al. US2007/0192306 in view of Rose et al. US2008/0154878
Regarding claim 13, Norton as modified does not teach: further comprising ordering a display of metalabels as a function of weighting values
However, Rose teaches: further comprising ordering a display of metalabels as a function of weighting values. (Rose see paragraph 0136 tags presented in order based on weights)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton as modified to include ordering based on weights as taught by Rose for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and presenting data
Claim(s) 16 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton et al. US2007/0156636 in view of Apple, "Apple to Ship Mac OS X "Tiger" on April 29, April 12, 2005 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/04/12Apple-to-Ship-Mac-OS-X-Tiger-on-April-29/ in view of Papakonstantinou et al. US2007/0192306 in view of Millikan et al. US2006/0095450
Regarding claim 16, Norton further teaches: search results (Norton see paragraph 0179 search hits)
Norton as modified does not teach: comprises a lexicographic ordering of the metalabels and data. (Millikan see paragraph 0011 jazz files played in alphabetical order according to artist name or by title order by an artist)
Millikan teaches: comprises a lexicographic ordering of the metalabels and data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of using annotations to search as taught by Norton as modified to include alphabetic ordering as taught by Millikan for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153