DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 11/11/2025. Claims 1, 10, 11 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1, 2 and 4-19 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The previously pending objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
The previously pending objection to the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitations "each of said subsystems", “said environments”, “said three environments”, “the development environment”, “the first set of subsystems”, “the second set of subsystems”, “the third set of subsystems”, “the run-time environment”, and “the management environment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Terminal Disclaimer
As described in the communication filed 11/17/2025, Applicant completed the wrong Terminal Disclaimer form. As a result, the claims remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 14 and 18-20 contain illegible text. See MPEP §608.02, 37 CFR 1.84 (I), and 37 CFR 1.84 (m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1 21 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11748680 (‘680).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Independent claims 1 and 11 of the current application correspond to independent claims 1 and 10 of ’680, respectively. Independent claims 1 and 11 of the current application are merely broader versions of the corresponding independent claims in ‘680, therefore the claims under examination are anticipated by the reference claims.
Additionally, dependent claims 2, 4-10 and 12-19 of the current application corresponding to dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18, respectively of ‘680.
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 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 11-19 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a process.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite internal control management, including providing, displaying, on-boarding, creating, editing, dragging and dropping, selecting, generating, executing, developing and validating, and connecting steps.
The limitations of providing, displaying, on-boarding, creating, editing, dragging and dropping, selecting, generating, executing, developing and validating, and connecting, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite providing a plurality of dashboards generated by, and having user-selectable fields associated with the internal control management, one of the dashboards comprising a control monitoring scoreboard; simultaneously displaying on the scoreboard key performance indicators determined in real time, the key performance indicators comprising controls failed, related records scanned, tests performed, and associated risk scores; displaying the foregoing determinations on the scoreboard as user-perceptible indicia; displaying detail records of respective ones of the key performance indicators in response to user selection of an associated field on the scoreboard; on-boarding data including: at least one of creating a first data flow mapping corresponding to a first data source programming interface source object to be on-boarded and editing a previously created, second data flow mapping corresponding to a second data source object; dragging and dropping at least one of the data source objects to be on-boarded into a first logical work space; selecting a predetermined connection for the dropped data source object from a plurality of the connections; and generating a source qualifier and default select query for the dropped data source object; executing the data flow mappings to generate associated run statistics, and displaying in real-time first indicia corresponding to the execution of the data flow mappings; wherein the steps of creating the first data flow mapping and editing the second data flow mapping comprise: developing and validating the data flow mappings using transformation objects selected from the group consisting of Joiner, Filter, Lookup, Router, Cache, Expression, and JAVA/Scala/Python/R transformations and connecting to target definitions after validation of the data flow mappings; wherein the steps of dragging and dropping and connecting to the target definitions are executable in a manner agnostic to script language associated with the source object and the target definition.
That is, other than reciting computer-implemented steps in response to user input through a RESTful application programming interface, the claim limitations merely cover commercial interactions, including compliance (i.e., legal obligations) and business relations, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The method claims recite the steps being implemented by a computer, subsystem, or a programming routine in the preamble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Additionally, the amended claim language recites “wherein each of said subsystems for all of said environments are user-accessible through a thin client comprising an internet browser, the thin client having a graphical user interface with selectable fields corresponding to each of said subsystems of each of said three environments simultaneously displayed on an associated user-perceptible screen; wherein the first set of subsystems is executable in the development environment, the first set of subsystems comprising a data on-boarder, connection adapters, and governance, risk management, and compliance forms; wherein the second set of subsystems is executable in the run-time environment and comprises a data integration server; wherein the third set of subsystems is executable in the management environment and comprises incident management, issue management, scheduling, monitoring, and security.” However, the newly added “wherein” clauses recite elements not mentioned in the body of claim.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include computer-implemented steps in response to user input through a RESTful application programming interface. The computer-implemented steps in response to user input through a RESTful application programming interface in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 element of computer-implemented steps in response to user input through a RESTful application programming interface 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.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 12 and 13 recite additional displaying and configuring steps. Claims 14-16 recite additional providing, enabling, determining, and generating steps and further describes the step of drag and drop of the data source object. Claims 17-19 recite additional monitoring, identifying, generating, causing, displaying, updating, launching, accessing, and validating steps. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, computer-implemented steps in response to user input through a RESTful application programming interface.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0064 of the specification, “Example embodiments are described herein with reference to block diagrams and/or flowchart illustrations of computer-implemented methods, apparatus (systems and/or devices) and/or computer program products. It is understood that a block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustrations, can be implemented by computer program instructions that are performed by one or more computer circuits. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor circuit of a general purpose computer circuit, special purpose computer circuit, and/or other programmable data processing circuit to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer and/or other programmable data processing apparatus, transform and control transistors, values stored in memory locations, and other hardware components within such circuitry to implement the functions/acts specified in the block diagrams and/or flowchart block or blocks, and thereby create means (functionality) and/or structure for implementing the functions/acts specified in the block diagrams and/or flowchart block(s).”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that independent method claim 11 as amended hereby is not drawn to an abstract idea, specifically as within an abstract idea rejection under the Grouping known as that Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity that is a Commercial Interaction.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that, even prior to the amendments set forth in this paper, each and every one of the rejected claims are drawn to a method that is a practical application for the internal auditing of sophisticated business entities that are subject to a variety of regulations and that are required to take action to manage the affairs of that business in compliance therewith. See [0002] of the Specification. As such, and as will be demonstrated hereinbelow, these claims are simply not abstract ideas, but rather cover practical applications that solve the problems set forth in [0002] through [0006] of the Specification and as such are eligible for patent protection under Section 101.
A thorough review of each one of the four example categories on pages 5 and 6 of the PEG proves the need for a finding of a relationship between two parties:
(1) The instant invention does not relate to an interaction that is an agreement between two parties in the form of contracts, such as the contractual relationship of a performance guaranty between two parties, as in the buySAFE,Inc. case;
(2) The instant invention does not relate to an interaction that is a legal obligation between two parties, such as an exchange of real estate between two parties as in the Fort Properties case or resolving a legal dispute between two parties as in In re Comiskey;
(3) The instant invention does not relate to an interaction between two parties that is an advertising, marketing, or sales activity or behavior, such as using advertising as an exchange between two parties as in the Ultramercial case; and
(4) The instant invention does not relate to an interaction that is a business relationship between two parties, such as processing a credit application between a customer and dealer as in the Credit Acceptance Corp. case.
Not one of the examples under subsection (A) Concepts Relating to Managing Relationships or Transactions between People, or Satisfying or Avoiding a Legal Obligation or subsection (B) Concepts Relating to Advertising, Marketing, and Sales Activities or Behaviors as set out in MPEP2106.04[a][2][II][A]-[B] that is cited in the PEG at page 6 apply to the instant method. The method taught by Applicant does not govern "interactions," nor "Relationships between People," or, those set forth in the MIPEP subsections because the teachings relate to a self-contained system and method used to manage a sophisticated business enterprise for the benefit of just that one entity in a manner compliant with applicable governmental regulations. There is simply no second party and hence no interaction between two parties. For all of these reasons, each of the method claims as amended herein cover practical applications and as such are entitled to patent protection under section 101. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial point, and contrary to Applicant’s bald assertion, nowhere does the PEG state or imply “the need for a finding of a relationship between two parties.” That statement seems to merely be Applicant’s misinterpretation of guidance.
Here, paragraph 0002 of the specification recites “Corporations, companies, and other business entities are often subject to a variety of regulations, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley ("SOX") Act. Such regulations often include provisions which relate to internal controls of operations of such corporate entities, and requiring appropriate management, assessment, and other compliance activities. Separate and apart from regulatory requirements, business efficiencies may likewise dictate internal business and financial processes, reporting requirements, and other related internal business control structures, the management and auditing of any of the foregoing being important elements of business operations and regulatory compliance.”
Additionally, paragraph 0007 recites “The management environment of the system may include subsystems with programming for incident management, issue management, scheduling, monitoring, and security, and such subsystems may be readily accessible to any authorized users of the audit team, development team, or management”, while paragraph 0008 recites that “A plurality of dashboards having user-selectable fields associated therewith may display, in real time or near real time, key performance indicators associated with the controls under management and associated tasks, batches, and other audit control management functions. One dashboard may be in the form of a scoreboard which displays detailed records of respective key performance indicators in response to user selection of an associated fields.”
Moreover, paragraphs 0037-0038 recite “Users associated with such RESTful API may comprise any of those in the audit group or audit team, but may especially be operated by control or system developers, architects, and testers of the various internal audits and internal audit controls of system 23. More generally, users, such as auditors, CEOs, COOs, process owners, data and line managers, or compliance officers, may have access to different environments or subsystems of system 23 depending on the access entitlement protocols for system 23 for different classes of users.”
As a result, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, other than reciting computer-implemented steps in response to user input through a RESTful application programming interface, the claim limitations merely cover commercial interactions, including compliance (i.e., legal obligations) and business relations, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, as discussed above, the amended method claims recite the steps being implemented by a computer, subsystem, or a programming routine in the preamble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Additionally, the amended claim language recites “wherein each of said subsystems for all of said environments are user-accessible through a thin client comprising an internet browser, the thin client having a graphical user interface with selectable fields corresponding to each of said subsystems of each of said three environments simultaneously displayed on an associated user-perceptible screen; wherein the first set of subsystems is executable in the development environment, the first set of subsystems comprising a data on-boarder, connection adapters, and governance, risk management, and compliance forms; wherein the second set of subsystems is executable in the run-time environment and comprises a data integration server; wherein the third set of subsystems is executable in the management environment and comprises incident management, issue management, scheduling, monitoring, and security.” However, the newly added “wherein” clauses recite elements not mentioned in the body of claim, as discussed in the objection of claim 11.
Conclusion
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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 February 14, 2026