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 .
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant provided Information Disclosure Statements
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/12/2026. The Applicant made no amendments to the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 7-9 that the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees.
The claims recite generating a recommendation and generating a task with respect to the recommendation. This clearly teaches task management. The claims also state collecting personal data of a user by way of tracking technology (i.e. managing personal behavior). The claims also recite displaying data such as a data structure. Applicant’s specification also states interaction between different organizations, vendors, customers and business partners (See para 0130-0131). These interactions are clearly commercial legal interactions. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; legal interactions, business relations, interactions between people, and managing personal behavior).
Applicant argues on page 10-11
Claim 1 recites "monitoring, by the one or more processing devices, a storage location associated with a mobile application to detect changes to computer code stored in the storage location" and "uploading, by the one or more processing devices, the mobile application from the storage location." A human cannot mentally monitor a storage location for code changes or upload a mobile application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner interpreted the step of uploading as an additional element, therefore it is not part of step 2A prong 1 of identifying an abstract idea. The Applicant should not use additional elements in step 2A prong 1. In addition, monitoring is still an abstract idea step which is just analyzing information. The additional elements of processing devices, mobile application, and computer code are merely additional elements that generally link the abstract idea to a computer environment.
Applicant argues on page 11-12
This detection and analysis at the code level represents a technological improvement over manual privacy audits.
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees
The claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem. The problem of retrieving data and using that data to asses a risk. Retrieving data, determining a risk, providing an audit schedule, displaying data, detecting data, and analyzing data are all abstract idea steps. (See para 0002 in Applicant’s steps). The claims also recite the business processes of generating a recommendation/task. In contrast, a technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes. In addition, the claims are not analogous to Finjan. Finjan provided actual functions that are being carried out by the computer such as attaching a downloadable security profile to a downloadable. The instant application does not positively recite the computer actively modifying computer code, but merely states a task and describes the task.
Applicant argues on page 12
Embodiments of the present disclosure prevent human introduced error from privacy audit software by answering each individual question within each such questionnaire for each requirement of each applicable set of regulations or requirements. The various embodiments thus increase the efficiency with which users can provide information that can be used by the various disclosed systems to determine compliance with multiple regulations and/or requirements, and the resulting answers can be generated without human bias. Specification, para 114 and 115.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Increasing the efficiency of collecting data from users and determining compliance by performing audits are all business problems and not technical problems. The claimed invention is merely improving a business process, which is not the same as a technical problem and solution as seen in the court case of McRO.
Applicant argues on page 13
There is a direct nexus between the alleged exception and the concrete technological result. Claim 1 recites "generating, by the one or more processing devices, a data structure stored in association with the mobile application, the data structure identifying the tracking technology and the one or more code segments associated with the SDK." This data structure is a machine associated technical artifact tied to code-level analysis. The data structure directly links the identified tracking technology to specific code segments, enabling targeted code modifications
for privacy compliance. The claims are analogous to those found patent-eligible in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims never teach modifying the code (i.e. no active step of modification). The claims merely state providing data structure for display which is merely displaying information. A user can look at a data structure and determine information from it. In addition, the claimed invention is not analogous to Finjan. Finjan provided virus scanning which provided an improvement to computer technology. The claimed invention here merely deals with improving a business process with respect to privacy audits. The claims also do not deal with a virus scanning tool.
Applicant argues on page 13
The Office has alleged that the additional elements are "purely functional and generic." Office Action, p. 11. However, the Office cites no evidence that the claimed operations are well understood, routine, or conventional.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner did not used the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101 from the 4/28/2026 office action. The 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.” Accordingly, Berkheimer evidence is not required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 7 and 14 recite the limitations of
monitoring a storage location of a… application; determining that a new version of the…application has been stored in the storage location based on a detection of a change to the …code…analyzing…code for the…application …to collect personal data of a user of the… application; detecting…technology… generating… a recommendation…generating a task… generating a data structure …
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts that include generating recommendations/tasks which corresponds to task management. The claimed invention also recites a workflow with respect to tasks as seen in para 0558. The claims also state collecting personal data of a user by way of tracking technology (i.e. managing personal behavior). Applicant’s specification also states interaction between different organizations, vendors, customers and business partners (See para 0130-0131). These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, interactions between people).
The claims also recite limitations that would fall in the abstract idea grouping of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) such as generating, monitoring, determining, and analyzing data. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, a user is able to make determinations as well as determine and analyze data without the use of a computer. A user is also able to generate data that corresponds to a data structure.
It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of uploading the mobile application from the storage location, providing, by the one or more processing devices, display on a display screen, non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code, processing devices, mobile application, computer code, mobile device, online mobile application marketplace, and software development kit.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe what the recommendation is. In addition, the dependent claims further recite what the storage location is. In addition, the dependent claims further recite what the tracking technology is such as detecting location of a mobile user.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Non-transitory computer-readable medium, program code, processing devices, providing, by the one or more processing devices, display on a display screen, computer code, software development kit, and uploading the mobile application from the storage location.
Claim 3, 10, 17 recites mobile device
Claim 5, 13, and 20 recites online mobile application marketplace
Claim 7 recites system, Non-transitory computer-readable medium, processing device, computer code, mobile application, display screen,
Claim 14 recites computing hardware, computer code, mobile application, software development kit, display screen
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general-purpose computer in para 0124.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0124. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Morley (US20160162275A1) Discloses an Application (“App”) Checker identifies and isolates incompatible applications on a mobile device during a software platform update.
Barday (20170287034) Discloses (1) presenting a threshold privacy assessment that includes a first set of privacy-related questions for a privacy campaign (2) receiving respective answers to the first set of questions; (3) using this initial set of answers to calculate an initial privacy risk score for the privacy campaign; (4) determining whether the privacy risk score exceeds the threshold privacy risk value; (5) in response to the privacy risk score exceeding the threshold privacy risk value, providing one or more supplemental questions to the user to facilitate the completion of a full privacy impact assessment. In some embodiments, in response to determining that the privacy risk score does not exceed the threshold privacy risk value, the systems and methods provide an indication that the particular privacy campaign is a relatively low privacy campaign.
LaFever (20150128285) Discloses various systems, computer-readable media, and computer-implemented methods for providing improved data privacy, anonymity and security by enabling subjects to which data pertains to remain "dynamically anonymous," i.e., anonymous for as long as is desired--and to the extent that is desired--are disclosed herein.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights