DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings have been reviewed and are accepted as being in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Regarding claims 11, 13, 18, and 19 the phrase "to be" renders the claimsindefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Double Patenting
7. 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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 12,019,587.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-20 of the cited US 12,019,587 for obtaining metadata and associated with a naming structure according to metadata. The claim merely omits certain bold limitations as shown in comparison table below, and replaces them with:
Claim 1 (instant application)
Claim 16 (US 12,019,587)
1. A method implemented by a computing platform, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of metadata associated with a data file;
determining, based on at least a first subset of the obtained set of metadata, a naming structure to use for the data file,
wherein the first subset of the obtained set of metadata comprises metadata values for metadata fields, and wherein the determined naming structure
defines a sequence of data fields and is associated with one or more metadata values of the first subset of the obtained set of metadata;
generating, based on the determined naming structure and at least a second subset of the obtained set of metadata, a name for the data file; and applying the name to the data file by storing the name as a metadata value for the data file.
16. A method carried out by a computing platform, the method comprising: receiving, from a first client station, a data file;
obtaining metadata associated with the data file;
determining, based on at least a first set of metadata from the obtained metadata associated with the data file,
a naming structure to use for the data file, wherein the first set of metadata comprises metadata values for metadata fields, and wherein the determined naming structure
is selected from a plurality of predefined naming structures that each defines a respective sequence of data fields, and (ii) includes one or more data fields, each data field corresponding to a respective metadata value of the first set of metadata;
generating, based on the determined naming structure and at least a second set of metadata from the obtained metadata, a proposed name for the data file; and transmitting, to a second client station, a communication identifying the proposed name and thereby causing an indication of the proposed name for the data file to be presented at a user interface of the second client station
Table 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of data processing at the time the invention was made to modify the invention as claimed in the instance application by substituting metadata values with determining, based on at least a first subset of the obtained set of metadata, a naming structure to use for the data file, since an omission and addition of a cited limitation would have not changed the process according to which the method and system as claimed.
Therefore, the use of having a set or subset of metadata would be an obvious variation in the art for the purpose of achieving the same end results generating, based on the determined naming structure and at least a second subset of the obtained set of metadata, a name for the data file; and applying the name to the data file by storing the name as a metadata value for the data file and would not interfere with the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function.
The independent and dependent claims 2-20 are rejected for fully incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-12, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al (US 2021/0397670), in view of TANG (US 2014/0019494).
As per Claim 1, Cohen discloses:
A method implemented by a computing platform, the method comprising: obtaining a set of metadata associated with a data file; (Par [0062], “…such as metadata about the users and the content items, sources of the content items, histories of user activity with respect to the content items…”) determining, based on at least a first subset of the obtained set of metadata, (Par [0017], “In yet another embodiment, a server computer may analyze a plurality of content items to determine keywords associated with each content item and present to a user a subset of the analyzed content items based on the keywords associated with each content item.” And see Figures 2-5) a naming structure to use for the data file, wherein the first subset of the obtained set of metadata comprises metadata values for metadata fields, (Par [0183], “…Suggestions may be constrained by both independent and contextual properties in a variety of ways depending on the types of properties. For example, properties may be tested or evaluated against keywords, expressions, integer values, percentages, and changes in values over time (i.e., trends).” And Par [0323], “Folder 928) in Content Repository 910, navigate and view collections of folders and content items (for example, Folder 925 and Folder 930 and their corresponding items), organize folders and content items (for example, to include copying, moving, deleting, renaming, and customizing folders and content items)” and see Figures 4-5) and wherein the determined naming structure defines a sequence of data fields and is associated with one or more metadata values of the first subset of the obtained set of metadata; (Par [0060] and par [0303], “…methods for recommending an existing folder. For example, the suggestion engine can examine keywords (for example, from the title or snippet of a Web page) or metadata associated with the content item of interest as well as the content items in a user's existing folder, see Figures 6-8)
generating, based on the determined naming structure and at least a second subset of the obtained set of metadata, a name for the data file; and (Par [0067], “… multiple approaches to generating suggestions, each of which provides users of the engine with alternatives for controlling the scope and types of suggestions” and par [0391], “The directions, which can sometimes comprise an entity called a “kernel”, “operating system”, “program”, “application”, “utility”, “subroutine”, “script”, “macro”, “file”…”) applying the name to the data file by storing the name as a metadata value for the data file. (Par [0102], “Step 420 an indication of a value for any parameter(s) that may be required to evaluate the selected relationship. For example, if the relationship “N(j)” is being evaluated, the suggestion engine may receive at Step 420 an indication of a value for the parameter “j,” corresponding to the copresence threshold. Using the selected relationship and the appropriate parameter value(s) supplied in Step 420”).
However, Cohen do not specifically recite the “naming structure defines a sequence of data fields”
Tang discloses the above claimed features: (Par [0018], "the meta-data information stored in the primary key comprises at least: the sub-folder number, current maximum file ID, current data set, file deletion information and timestamp of folders and files when written." Par [0062], "the folder's name is used as a primary key, which stores the meta- data information of the folder" and see Figures 4-5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tang specifically a naming structure, with a naming structure selected from a respective sequence of data fields into the method of Cohen to take advantage on applying a specific name related to data elements pertaining to data asset lineage map. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement related data names across a data asset catalog to have them classified according to similarities based on metadata.
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and TANG further discloses: wherein determining, based on at least the first subset of the obtained set of metadata, the naming structure to use for the data file comprises selecting the naming structure from a plurality of predefined naming structures, wherein each predefined naming structure defines a respective sequence of data fields. (See Figures 4 and 5A-5D).
However, Cohen do not specifically recite the “predefined” and the “naming structure defines a sequence of data fields”
Tang discloses the above claimed features: (Par [0018], "the meta-data information stored in the primary key comprises at least: the sub-folder number, current maximum file ID, current data set, file deletion information and timestamp of folders and files when written." Par [0062], "the folder's name is used as a primary key, which stores the meta- data information of the folder" and see Figures 4-5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tang specifically a naming structure, with a naming structure selected from a respective sequence of data fields into the method of Cohen to take advantage on applying a specific name related to data elements pertaining to data asset lineage map. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement related data names across a data asset catalog to have them classified according to similarities based on metadata.
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, and Cohen further discloses: wherein generating the name for the data file comprises generating the name for the data file further based on the first subset of the obtained set of metadata. (Par [0017], “In yet another embodiment, a server computer may analyze a plurality of content items to determine keywords associated with each content item and present to a user a subset of the analyzed content items based on the keywords associated with each content item.” And see Figures 2-5)
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, and TANG further discloses: wherein a data field of the respective sequence of data fields corresponds to a metadata value of the first subset of the obtained set of metadata. (Par [0017], “In yet another embodiment, a server computer may analyze a plurality of content items to determine keywords associated with each content item and present to a user a subset of the analyzed content items based on the keywords associated with each content item.” And see Figures 2-5)
However, Cohen do not specifically recite the “sequence of data fields”
Tang discloses the above claimed features: (Par [0018], "the meta-data information stored in the primary key comprises at least: the sub-folder number, current maximum file ID, current data set, file deletion information and timestamp of folders and files when written." Par [0062], "the folder's name is used as a primary key, which stores the meta- data information of the folder" and see Figures 4-5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tang specifically a naming structure, with a naming structure selected from a respective sequence of data fields into the method of Cohen to take advantage on applying a specific name related to data elements pertaining to data asset lineage map. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement related data names across a data asset catalog to have them classified according to similarities based on metadata.
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, and Cohen further discloses:
wherein the second subset of the obtained set of metadata comprises metadata values for metadata fields that correspond to data fields of the sequence of data fields. (Par [0017], “In yet another embodiment, a server computer may analyze a plurality of content items to determine keywords associated with each content item and present to a user a subset of the analyzed content items based on the keywords associated with each content item.” And see Figures 2-5)
However, Cohen do not specifically recite the “sequence of data fields”
Tang discloses the above claimed features: (Par [0018], "the meta-data information stored in the primary key comprises at least: the sub-folder number, current maximum file ID, current data set, file deletion information and timestamp of folders and files when written." Par [0062], "the folder's name is used as a primary key, which stores the meta- data information of the folder" and see Figures 4-5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tang specifically a naming structure, with a naming structure selected from a respective sequence of data fields into the method of Cohen to take advantage on applying a specific name related to data elements pertaining to data asset lineage map. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement related data names across a data asset catalog to have them classified according to similarities based on metadata.
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated, and Cohen further discloses:
wherein generating the name for the data file comprises generating, for each data field of the sequence of data fields, a respective name segment by populating the data field with a respective metadata value of the second subset of the obtained set of metadata that corresponds to the data field. (Par [0017], “In yet another embodiment, a server computer may analyze a plurality of content items to determine keywords associated with each content item and present to a user a subset of the analyzed content items based on the keywords associated with each content item.” And see Figures 2-5)
However, Cohen do not specifically recite the “sequence of data fields”
Tang discloses the above claimed features: (Par [0018], "the meta-data information stored in the primary key comprises at least: the sub-folder number, current maximum file ID, current data set, file deletion information and timestamp of folders and files when written." Par [0062], "the folder's name is used as a primary key, which stores the meta- data information of the folder" and see Figures 4-5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tang specifically a naming structure, with a naming structure selected from a respective sequence of data fields into the method of Cohen to take advantage on applying a specific name related to data elements pertaining to data asset lineage map. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement related data names across a data asset catalog to have them classified according to similarities based on metadata.
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, and Cohen further discloses:
wherein determining, based on at least the first subset of the obtained set of metadata, the naming structure to use for the data file comprises determining the naming structure by utilizing one or more of (i) a user-defined set of rules or (ii) a data science model to analyze the first subset of the obtained set of metadata. (Par [0069] In the following sections, some exemplary methods are disclosed for finding entities that satisfy certain formal relationships. The exemplary methods operate on a data model that assumes (1) entities of interest (for example, content items) can be identified and enumerated; (2) the suggestion engine can examine their relevant properties; and (3)…”).
However, Cohen do not specifically recite the “naming structure defines a sequence of data fields”
Tang discloses the above claimed features: (Par [0018], "the meta-data information stored in the primary key comprises at least: the sub-folder number, current maximum file ID, current data set, file deletion information and timestamp of folders and files when written." Par [0062], "the folder's name is used as a primary key, which stores the meta- data information of the folder" and see Figures 4-5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tang specifically a naming structure, with a naming structure selected from a respective sequence of data fields into the method of Cohen to take advantage on applying a specific name related to data elements pertaining to data asset lineage map. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement related data names across a data asset catalog to have them classified according to similarities based on metadata.
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, and Cohen further discloses: further comprising: after applying the name to the data file, placing the data file in a common data environment (CDE). (Par [0045], “… A or has associated document A with a folder). In either case, because both User 1 and User 2 have associated document A with document B by placing the two documents together in a folder (User 1 associated the two documents together in Folder F1; User 2 associated the same two documents together in Folder F2), the suggestion engine 105 may conclude that documents A and B are semantically related and therefore provide document B as a new content suggestion to User 3. Embodiments of the present invention are directed to systems and methods for providing suggestions in this fashion, using folder-like association criteria summarized in the example above, as well as more complex relational criteria described below.” And par [0060] and See Figures 1-3).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, and Cohen further discloses: wherein the first subset of the obtained set of metadata and the second subset of the obtained set of metadata are different subsets of the obtained set of metadata. (Par [0325], “…Such a display may include the content item's content and/or any associated attributes (for example, a text description, a corresponding image, a URL, etc.), including any subsets and combinations thereof.”).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, and Cohen further discloses: wherein applying the name to the data file comprises automatically applying the name to the data file. (Par [0300-0301], “a suggestion engine may automatically select an existing folder or a new folder without user input. For example, when a user elects to save a content item, the suggestion engine may automatically save the content item to a specific folder (i.e., a new folder or an existing one) without requiring the user to make a selection.”).
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated, and Cohen further discloses: further comprising: after automatically applying the name to the data file, transmitting, to a client device, a communication identifying the automatically-applied name, thereby causing an indication of the automatically-applied name to be presented at a user interface of the client device that notifies a user of the client device which name has been applied to the data file. (Par [0241], “. In some embodiments, the content repository may employ an algorithm to automatically make this election on behalf of the user, for example, based on how frequently the item has been observed to change throughout its history in the repository.” And par [0300-0301]).
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, and Cohen further discloses: wherein the first subset of the obtained set of metadata comprises at least one of (i) metadata generated by the computing platform or (ii) metadata that has been received from one or more client devices. (Par [0057], “Users can also create or supply their own content to a suggestion engine. Such user-supplied content can be created from scratch, obtained from friends or colleagues, or acquired from any other source available to a user.” And see Figure 1)
As per Claims 8-12, and 14-17 and 20 being the method claims corresponding to the system claims 1-7 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection with the rejections of Claims 1-7 and further Cohen discloses: (Par [0311]).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 13 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Prasad; Shyam Babu (US-8843535-B2) relates to creating a new metadata field may include naming the metadata field and specifying a type of data for the metadata field (e.g., string, number, date, true/false). The administrator may be permitted to associate an existing metadata category with the location and/or create a new metadata category. If a new metadata category is created, this metadata category may be available for the administrator and/or administrators to associate with other locations.
Larcheveque; Jean-Marie H. (US-7496837-B1), relates to a data-entry field corresponding to an HTML element in the HTML view, where the HTML element is associated a specifically named attribute. The received data entered into the data-entry field of the electronic form is mapped to an XML node in the XML document, where the location of the XML node is determined by the value of the specifically named attribute.
OMOIGUI; NOSA (US-20100070448-A1), relates to Domain Agents (see below) that may follow a different naming convention.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3158. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am to 6:00 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/ANGELICA RUIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights