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 .
Remarks
Claims 21-23 and 26-32 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-24 and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 discloses “traversing a plurality of memory locations within the data source” but there is no mention of any “traversing” nor “memory locations” in the specification. Independent claims 31 and 32 are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 22-24 and 26-30 are rejected based upon their dependency on independent claim 21.
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 21-24 and 26-32 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 21 recites the limitation "the plurality" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claims 31 and 32 are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 22-24 and 26-30 are rejected based upon their dependency on independent claim 21.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method of detecting presence of personal information in data sources of an organization, the method comprising: a) receiving, for a plurality of data subjects, respective personal information (PI) data, the respective PI data of each data subject comprising data representable as one or more personal information attribute/value pairs; b) searching one or more of the data sources, thereby giving rise to one or more personal information findings, wherein the searching of at least one of the data sources comprises: (i) traversing a plurality of memory locations within the data source, and (ii) based on, at least, one or more personal information rules (PIRs), identifying locations of the plurality which contain PI data, and wherein each personal information finding is indicative of a correlation between: (i) data at a location in one of the searched data sources, and (ii) a value of an attribute/value pair of the PI data of a respective data subject of the plurality of data subjects; c) based on, at least, the personal information findings, performing at least one of: (i) alerting regarding presence of PI in the respective source of organizational data, and (ii) remedying presence of PI in the respective source of organizational data”.
The limitations of “A method of detecting presence of personal information in data sources of an organization, the method comprising: a) Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “memory” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “memory” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, for a plurality of data subjects, respective personal information (PI) data, the respective PI data of each data subject comprising data representable as one or more personal information attribute/value pairs” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “memory” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, for a plurality of data subjects, respective personal information (PI) data, the respective PI data of each data subject comprising data representable as one or more personal information attribute/value pairs” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 21, wherein at least part of the searched data is privacy-requiring”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 21, wherein traversing comprises at least one of: a. scanning all data present in a data source, and b. performing a sample scan on a data source”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the PIRs is preconfigured”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 21 ,wherein at least one of the PIRs is based on machine learning”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 21, wherein at least one PIR specifies a criterion of exact matching of scanned data of the data source and a value of an attribute/value pair of the received PI”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 21 ,wherein at least one PIR specifies a criterion of: at least partial matching of first scanned data of the data source and a value of a first attribute/value pair of the received PI; at least partial matching of second scanned data of the data source and a value of a second attribute/value pair of the received PI; and the first scanned data and second scanned data being comprised in a single identified row”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 28, wherein the first scanned data is associated with an identifiability score meeting a threshold of identifiability, and wherein the second scanned data is associated with identifiability score not meeting the threshold of identifiability”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 21, wherein one or more of the data subjects is a non-individual”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system of detecting presence of personal information in data sources of an organization, the system comprising a processing circuitry configured to: a) receive, for a plurality of data subjects, respective personal information (PI) data, the respective PI data of each data subject comprising data representable as one or more personal information attribute/value pairs; b) search one or more of the data sources, thereby giving rise to one or more personal information findings, wherein the search of at least one of the data sources comprises: (i) traversal of a plurality of memory locations with the data source, and (ii) based on, at least, one or more personal information rules (PIRs), identification of locations of the plurality which contain PI data, and wherein each personal information finding is indicative of a correlation between: (i) data at a location in one of the searched data sources, and (ii) a value of an attribute/value pair of the PI data of a respective data subject of the plurality of data subjects; c) based on, at least, the personal information findings, perform at least one of: (i) alerting regarding presence of PI in the respective source of organizational data, and (ii) remedying presence of PI in the respective source of organizational data”.
The limitations of “the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system”, “a processing circuitry”, and “memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “system”, “processing circuitry”, and “memory” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system”, “a processing circuitry”, and “memory” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, for a plurality of data subjects, respective personal information (PI) data, the respective PI data of each data subject comprising data representable as one or more personal information attribute/value pairs” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a system”, “a processing circuitry”, and “memory” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receive, for a plurality of data subjects, respective personal information (PI) data, the respective PI data of each data subject comprising data representable as one or more personal information attribute/value pairs” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer program product comprising a computer readable non-transitory storage medium containing program instructions, which program instructions when read by a processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform a method of detecting presence of personal information in data sources of an organization, the method comprising: a) receiving, for a plurality of data subjects, respective personal information (PI) data, the respective PI data of each data subject comprising data representable as one or more personal information attribute/value pairs; b) searching one or more of the data sources, thereby giving rise to one or more personal information findings in the organizational data, wherein the searching of at least one of the data sources comprises: (i) traversing of a plurality of memory locations with the data source, and based on, at least, one or more personal information rules (PIRs), identifying locations of the plurality which contain PI data, and where each personal information finding is indicative of a correlation between: (i) data at a location in one of the searched data sources, and (ii) a value of an attribute/value pair of the PI data of a respective data subject of the plurality of data subjects; c) based on, at least, the personal information findings, performing at least one of: (i) alerting regarding presence of PI in the respective source of organizational data, and (ii) remedying presence of PI in the respective source of organizational data”.
The limitations of “A computer program product comprising (PIRs), identifying locations of the plurality which contain PI data, and where each personal information finding is indicative of a correlation between: (i) data at a location in one of the searched data sources, and (ii) a value of an attribute/value pair of the PI data of a respective data subject of the plurality of data subjects; c) based on, at least, the personal information findings, performing at least one of: (i) alerting regarding presence of PI in the respective source of organizational data, and (ii) remedying presence of PI in the respective source of organizational data”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer readable non-transitory storage medium”, “a processing circuitry” and “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computer readable non-transitory storage medium”, “a processing circuitry” and “memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “computer readable non-transitory storage medium”, “processing circuitry” and “memory” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a computer readable non-transitory storage medium”, “a processing circuitry” and “memory” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, for a plurality of data subjects, respective personal information (PI) data, the respective PI data of each data subject comprising data representable as one or more personal information attribute/value pairs” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a computer readable non-transitory storage medium”, “a processing circuitry” and “memory” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, for a plurality of data subjects, respective personal information (PI) data, the respective PI data of each data subject comprising data representable as one or more personal information attribute/value pairs” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong One, that “the present claims recite traversal of digital memory locations within a computer-hardware-implemented data source, to identify specific memory locations contain potential personal data leaks” and that “[s]uch traversal includes machine-executed iteration over stored digital data structures” and “a human cannot traverse memory locations of a computerized data source, and identify memory locations requiring remedy or further processing” because “[t]hat activity is inherently tied to computer architecture and digital storage mechanisms” (see applicant arguments, page 8). However, the 35 USC 101 rejections above explains that the claimed “memory” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “memory” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Data structures are commonly stored in such memory but humans can conceptualize such structures nonetheless, and such structures are can be conceived and searched or traversed in the human mind or in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, that “the claim integrates any such idea into a practical application and therefore is not ‘directed to’ an abstract idea” because “addresses a technological problem that arises specifically in computerized data environments: i.e. inadvertent leaking of personal information stored across heterogeneous computerized data sources at the level of digital memory structures” and “claimed method recites a specific technological solution to that problem by requiring: traversing a plurality of memory locations within a data source, applying personal information rules at points in the traversal, and identifying specific digital storage locations containing PI data”, so the claim “is tied to the operation of computer memory structures and digital data storage systems” (see applicant argument, page 9). However, Step 2A, Prong Two, requires the evaluation of any additional elements in the claims, individually and in combination, to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). However, while the applicant seems to identify the claimed additional element of “memory”, this memory is a generic computer component and manipulation of the claimed “personal information” and applying “rules” to structures stored in “memory” is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer since such structures are typically stored in such generic memory. In addition, the improvement to the functioning of a computer under MPEP 2106.05(a), as argued by the applicant, requires that the specification include a technical explanation of an asserted improvement, and that the claim reflects the particular way of achieving that improvement. The applicant has not identified where the specification described such an improvement and how the claim reflects how to achieve that improvement. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151