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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 have been examined and are pending. Claims 7, and 14 were previously canceled.
Priority
Application 18/178,493 was filed 03/03/2023.
Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites maintaining and updating content data on a compliance platform. For Claims 1, 8 and 15 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
[…];
[…] executing a compliance data collector […]:
cause […] compliance data collector to:
obtain, by the compliance data collector, case content data […], wherein the case content data includes a set of compliance cases and, for each compliance case, a set of users mapped to the compliance case and user content data associated with the set of users;
cache, by the compliance data collector, the obtained case content data […] within the compliance data collector;
obtain, in a first number of parallel processing threads by the compliance data collector, team content data associated with users of the cached case content data […], wherein the first number of parallel processing threads is at least one thread less than a first thread limit imposed […] reserving the at least one thread for reacting to an issue with the first number of parallel processing threads;
cache, by the compliance data collector, the obtained team content data […] within the compliance data collector;
identify, by the compliance data collector, user content data and team content data of the users of the cached case content data to be updated […] using the cached user content data and the cached team content data;
prior to sending a command […] to update compliance cases of the case content data, determine, by the compliance data collector, a command time limit […], wherein the command time limit limits a quantity of time used in processing commands over a time interval;
measure, by the compliance data collector, a current command time taken by commands sent by the compliance data collector […] during the time interval;
based on the measured current command time and the determined command time limit, delay sending the command […] to update compliance cases of the case content data for a defined period of time such that the command time limit is not reached during the time interval based on the sent commands; and
after the defined period of time, update, in a second set of parallel processing threads by the compliance data collector, compliance cases of the case content data […] with up-to-date content data from a user data platform and the team cache corresponding to the identified user content data and the identified team content data, whereby up-to-date user content data and team content data is maintained in the compliance cases […], wherein the second number of parallel processing threads is at least one thread less than a second thread limit imposed […] reserving the at least one thread for reacting to an issue with the second number of parallel processing threads.
The above limitations are reciting a process by which data is being collected, and checked for compliance against rules and regulations, and determining if the most up to date polices are in place. This defines a certain method of organizing human activities that can be considered as a legal obligation depending on the rules and regulations and/or managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people such as the team and user data. While the examiner is not treating the abstract idea first and foremost as a mental process, the gathering of data and using the data to determine compliance while checking if the most up to date rules and regulations are in effect that is broadly recited is fully capable of being performed by a person who is using data on paper to communicate with others. Before the invention of modern day computers, humans would determine if employees were complying to rules and regulations according to most up to date policies. The concept of reviewing compliance rules and regulations for the most up to date polices and executing the rules and regulations, is something people can do and is a certain method of organizing human activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recites the additional elements of a first computing device (Claims 1, 8, and 15), a second computing device (Claims 1, 8, and 15), processor (Claims 1 and 15), a memory comprising computer program code (Claim 1), compliance platform (Claims 1, 8, and 15), team data platform (Claims 1, 8, and 15), a user data platform (Claims 1, 8, and 15), a case cache (Claims 1, 8, and 15), a team cache (Claims 1, 8, and 15), and computer storage media (Claim 15) that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do 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 a first computing device (Claims 1, 8, and 15), a second computing device (Claims 1, 8, and 15), processor (Claims 1 and 15), a memory comprising computer program code (Claim 1), compliance platform (Claims 1, 8, and 15), team data platform (Claims 1, 8, and 15), a user data platform (Claims 1, 8, and 15), a case cache (Claims 1, 8, and 15), a team cache (Claims 1, 8, and 15), and computer storage media (Claim 15), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more’). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-22 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as discussed above. Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 merely describe(s) identifying a current subset of data of the cached case content data that is associated with timestamps that are older than a defined timestamp threshold and obtaining a set of data from the compliance platform that corresponds to the identified current subset of the cached case content data and updating the data of the cached case content data with the obtained set of data form the compliance platform. Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 merely describe(s) what is included in obtaining the team content data associated with users of the cached case content data from a team data platform. Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 merely describe(s) what is included in identifying user content data and team content data of the users of the cached case content data to be updated on the compliance platform. Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 merely describe(s) what is included in the user content data. Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 merely describe(s) what is included in identifying user content data and team content data of the users of the cached case content data to be updated on the compliance platform. Claim(s) 21 merely describe(s) the compliance cases being updated after the defined period of time and after each case in queue is emptied. Claim(s) 22 merely describe(s) causing the compliance data collector to reduce the time required to update team content data by including private communication channel data associated with the team of which the user is a member. Therefore claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-22 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 3-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16-18, 20 and 22, include the additional elements of a compliance platform, team data platform, user data platform, and processor. The compliance platform, team data platform, user data platform, and processor are analyzed in the same manner as the compliance platform, team data platform, user data platform, and processor in the independent claim and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above.
Dependent Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. In addition, it recites the additional elements of a cloud-stored file data. The cloud-stored file data, is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-22 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
As previously disclosed in the Final Office Action on 09/23/2025, Independent Claim 1, Claim 8, and Claim 15, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-22 would also be allowable over prior art by virtue of their dependencies.
An updated search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues under Step 2A, Prong 1, that the claim does not recite “rules” so the claim cannot be interpreted to managing personal behavior such as following rules, further arguing that the claim recites a specific, technical process for automatically maintaining content data on a compliance platform which is a distributed computing solution implemented on different computing devices. The Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because as stated previously the invention performs data processing to determine compliance with the most up to date polices, therefore they are merely generic data processing steps that are merely instructions to carry out the abstract idea. Simply reciting a hardware device running a software data structure does not automatically disqualify the claims from reciting an abstract idea. Especially when the hardware is merely a tool to carry out the abstract idea, as detailed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore the recitation of maintaining and updating content data to determine compliance falls under “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The rejection has also been updated above to include the commercial or legal interaction category of the certain method organizing human activity. Under Step 2A Prong One, the Office only needs to identify at least one abstract idea grouping, not necessarily all possible ones. The claim clearly fits at least within certain methods of organizing human activity because it manages and updates compliance data, among different users. The language described the nature of the information being evaluated, and does not change the grouping relied upon.
Applicant argues features on Page 17 in the Remarks as being technical solutions to technical problems of distributed system coordination and throttle command management, and not organization or administrative activities performed by humans since enforcing platform thread limits, caching content data from multiple sources, and number of parallel processing threads under time limits require computational speed and coordination beyond human capability. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the functional limitations are part of the abstract idea, and merely instructed to be performed on generic computing devices by using the platform, computing device, processor, and cache without specifically improving upon the technology itself. The scope of the claims encapsulates gathering data, and determining if the most up to date polices for compliance are enforced. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to those in Ancora Technologies Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2018). The argument is not persuasive because the patent at issue in Ancora Technologies dealt with specific verification methods that depart from earlier approaches and improve computer technology eligible under § 101. In Ancora Technologies Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to storing a verification structure in computer memory were directed to a specific non-abstract computer-functionality improvement addressing the ‘‘vulnerability of license-authorization software to hacking.’’ 908 F.3d 1343, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[i]mproving security … can be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem.’’ Id. at 1349 (citing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). The Court further explained the claims ‘‘yield[ed] a tangible technological benefit’’ in making the system less susceptible to hacking by altering how the verification is performed. Id. at 1350. Further unlike Ancora Technologies which solved a technical problem of software license verification, here, the claimed invention does not solve a technological problem of computer security. Further unlike Ancora Technologies in which generic components operated in an unconventional manner in licensing verification data, here, no evidence was provided that the claimed invention uses anything other than generic components operating in anything but the conventional manner.
The Applicant argues that the claim recites features similar to the claim under Example 38, on page 6, of the “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas” where “The claim does not recite any of the judicial exception enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims does not recite a mathematical relationship formula, or calculation. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concept, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. With respect to mental processes, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claim does not recite a certain method or organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or commercial and legal interactions. The claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception”. However, this argument is not persuasive because the reasons for eligibility in Example 38 do not apply to the present claims. Example 38 was found eligible because the claim did not recite a mathematical calculation or concept, mental process or a method of organizing human activity. The present claims, however, recite a process by which data is being collected, and checked for compliance against rules and regulations, and determining if the most up to date polices are in effect. This defines a certain method of organizing human activities that can be considered as a legal obligation depending on the rules and regulations. Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong 1 are persuasive.
Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong 2 that the features apply the alleged abstract idea (updating data) through non-generic, computer-specific mechanisms that improve how distributed systems maintain consistency while adhering to performance constraints, and that the claimed operations improve the functioning of computer networks and platforms. However, this argument is not persuasive. While accelerating computing processes has historically been considered to show an improvement in computer-functionality, this does not provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more when the improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general purpose computer (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);), or when the improvement come from generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2105.05(h)). Furthermore, these alleged improvements are improvements to the abstract idea, and not to any of the particular technological environment or fields of use recited in the claims. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the improvements are analogous to those of DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and the applicant has not provided a convincing argument as to how this court cause is relevant to the present discussion. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “The claims in DDR Holdings were directed to systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third- party merchant. 773 F.3d at 1248, 113 USPQ2d at 1099. The court found that the claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host's webpage to the third party's webpage when the hyperlink was activated. 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07." At the time of the invention in DDR holdings, which was decided in December 2012, but was filed in 1989, producing a dual-source hybrid webpage was an unconventional technical solution to a technology-based system, at the time of filing. The examiner does not find this relevant to the disclosed method filed in 2023, since the alleged improvement is merely data handling using “parallel processing” without specifically limiting its use. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to those in McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 120USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The argument is not persuasive because the patent at issue in McRO dealt with an improvement in computer-related technology: automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using specific computer-implemented rules. With regard to McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., No. 2015-1080, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Court cited Diehr, as follows:
“The claims in Diehr, in contrast, were patentable. The claims likewise ‘employed a ‘well-known’ mathematical equation.’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Diehr, MCRO, INC. v. BANDAI NAMCO GAMES AMERICA 21 450 U.S. at 177). A computer performed the calculations as part of a broader process for curing rubber, but “the process as a whole [did] not thereby become unpatentable subject matter.’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187. Instead, the Court looked to how the claims “used that equation in a process designed to solve a technological problem in ‘conventional industry practice.’’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178). When looked at as a whole, ‘the claims in Diehr were patent eligible because they improved an existing technological process, not because they were implemented on a computer.’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.” McRO, pg. 21. (Emphasis added)
“When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177).” McRO, pg. 27.
Therefore, a determination must be made as to the focus of the claim(s) and whether the claim(s) are drawn to an improvement in computer-related technology whether it be to the operation of a computer or a computer network per se or a set of rules that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. Looking at the limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. In other words, the claims simply require the performance of the abstract idea of maintaining and updating content data on a compliance platform on generic computer components using conventional computer activities and unlike McRO, they are not drawn to an improvement in computer-related technology.
Applicant further argues that the claim features are similar to Example 42 of the “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples” Abstract Ideas in which the analysis found that “The claim as whole integrates the method of organizing human acidity into a practical application”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d) states that one way in which a claimed abstract idea may be subject eligible under step 2A, prong 2 is if the claimed invention solves a described technological problem and that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. Example 42 is an illustration of this. The Specification of Example 42 describes a technical problem (i.e., a problem caused by the technology): the technological implantation of software formats made it difficult to share updated health information. The claimed invention then solved this problem (technical solution) by providing a message and access to updated real-time data that has been converted to a standardized format, thus integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims of the instant application are not analogous to the claims of Example 42 as the claims of the instant application are not the same as the specific narrow limitation of real time conversion of non-standardized format to standardized formats. Unlike Example 42 and/or the technical solution to a technical problem inquiry, Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any technical problem that the claimed invention is solving. At best, the problem described in the as-filed disclosure is a business problem. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong 2 are persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible under Step 2B for reciting specific features, and is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, and that an inventive may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of limitations. The Examiner has fully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. The listed alleged improvements Applicant refers to are no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer, as it is merely instructing the computer to perform basic computing tasks to carry out the abstract idea. Nothing in the claims, even when considered as a whole, provides significantly more than the abstract idea, including the alleged combination of steps.
Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments that the invention is “not a well-understood, routine, or conventional” is not a persuasive argument because the claim rejection does not rely on an assertion that any of the steps recite well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. The rejection does not necessitate a factual determination that an additional element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity because all of the steps either fall under the abstract idea categorization or are merely “apply it” level additional elements because they are mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computing device. Therefore, the examiner is not convinced that the method as a whole provides “significantly more” than the abstract idea by reciting “an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology). Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 stands.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626