Art Rejection
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro-Dimm, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0293680, in view of Parthasarathy, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0057864.
Per claim 1, Navarro-Dimm discloses a computing system, e.g., server, comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
obtaining observability data with respect to computer-executable code of an organization, wherein the observability data is generated by an observability (SPI) tool that has access to the computer-executable code, the observability data being generated as portions of the computer-executable code of the organization are executed in a runtime environment, e.g., obtaining user comments in a chat session (see par 0036, 0038); and
analyzing the observability data to extract relevant information (see par 0039); and
outputting/populating a field of a data processing structure with a value identified based upon analysis of the observability data, wherein the value indicates that the computer-executable code of the organization processes personal data, e.g., detecting and outputting personal data from user input (see par 0040).
Navarro-Dimm does not explicitly teach extracting relevant information comprising identity of a service or a third party that processes and/or receives personal data, or a location at which the personal data is processed. However, Parthasarathy discloses a system and method for monitoring and protecting user personal data across multiple data sources, wherein in addition to personal data being identified from the observability data, access data such as location at which the personal data is processed and/or identity of an entity (e.g., application code) that processes the user personal data is also extracted from the observability data to determine the sensitive data (see Parthasarathy, par 0027, 0029, 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Navarro-Dimm with Parthasarathy’s teaching because it would have enabled detecting sensitive data being used across multiple sources (see Parthasarathy, par 0008).
Per claims 2-3, Navarro-Dimm teaches that the observability data comprises a log/trace generated by the observability tool, wherein the log/trace is a alphanumeric string that identifies sequence of events generated by a microservice of the computer-executable codes (see par 0038, 0045).
Per claim 4, Parthasarathy teaches that observability data comprises a metric, e.g., scorecard, which is measure value over a predefined interval of time (see par 0063).
Per claim 5, Parthasarathy teaches populating/storing or associating multiple fields of the data processing record with respective values identified based on the analysis of the observability data, wherein the values are indicative of how the computer-executable code processes personal data of users (see par 0066).
Per claim 6, Parthasarathy teaches obtaining static analysis for the computer-executable code, wherein the field of the data processing record is populated with the value based upon the static analysis data (see par 0066).
Per claim 7, Navarro-Dimm teaches that a value in the field of the processing record indicates that a person with respect to whom the personal data pertains has failed to provide consent for a specified purpose that the personal data is processed by the computer executable code (see par 0042).
Per claims 8-9, Parthasarathy teaches obtaining a policy between the organization and a user or a third party pertaining to personal data, wherein a flag value in the field of the processing record indicates a policy violation regarding use of the personal data (see par 0122).
Per claim 10, Navarro-Dimm teaches that the value in the field of the processing record indicates that the computer executable code previously failed to process the personal data (see par 0042).
Claims 11-20 are similar in scope as that of claims 1-10.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s arguments filed October 10, 2025 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are deemed moot in view of new ground of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
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).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
10/29/25