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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination Transmittal received on 2/25/2026.Claims 1, 9, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are pending examination.
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.
Step 2A, Prong One. Claim 1 recites maintaining a data store and verification rules, receiving an electronic request to perform data operation, determining whether the data object is protected, receiving approvals from authorized entities, determining whether a threshold number of approvals has been met, marking the request as approved, and automatically executing the request based on an auto-execution flag that bypasses certain credential verification steps. These steps collectively describe managing and executing a request based on rule-based authorization and multi-party conditions. These steps are similar to certain methods or organizing human activity, including managing permissions, approvals, and authorization processes. The claimed operations also include evaluating conditions, comparing credentials, counting approvals, and determining whether a threshold has been met, which are mental processes that could be processed in the human mind or using pen and paper. Therefore, claim1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two. The claim recites generic computer elements such as: electronically a data store, electronically maintaining verification rules, receiving electronic approvals, making a request as approved, and executing the request automatically. These elements merely implement the abstract authorization and approval process on generic computing components. The claim does not any specific improvement to computer functionality or specific technical improvement to network or data processing operations. Instead, the computer is used as a tool to perform the abstract authorization workflow more efficiently. Using generic computer components to automate an approval process does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements of the claim considered individually and in combination, amount to no more than maintaining data in a data store, applying stored rules, comparing credentials, counting approvals, setting an approval state and executing a request when conditions are met. These are routine data processing and access control functions commonly performed in software systems. The claim does not recite unconventional computer components or any non-conventional arrangement of elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Claim Rejections 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that:
The claims recite limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Response. The applicant asserts that the claimed method cannot be performed mentally. The claim recites electronic implementation of maintaining rules specifying protected objects and authorized credentials, receiving approvals from authorized entities, determining whether a threshold number of approvals has been met, marking a request as approved and executing the request when conditions are met. These operations reflect a rule-base authorization and approval process that conceptually capable of being performed mentally or by an organizational process. For example, a human administrator could maintain approval rules, collects approvals, count whether a required number has been obtained, and authorize execution once the condition is met. The fact that the claims is implemented using computer does not remove it from the mental process category.
The claims improve a technological process and improve computer functioning.
Response. The amended claims do not recite any specific improvement to any of the following: data structure, credentials verification mechanism, network security protocol, computer resource utilization, data integrity mechanism. The claims apply rule-based authorization logic using generic computing components. The recited “auto-execution” and bypass pf credential verification describe a business rule-based when certain checks are performed. Rather than a technological improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. An improvement to an administrative workflow, even when implemented electronically, does not constitute an improvement to computer functionality. The claims improve how approvals are managed, not how computers operate.
Reliance on McRO
Response, In McRO, it was found eligible because the claims recited a specific set of rules that improved computer animation technology by enabling automatic lip synchronization in a manner not previously done, and was found improving a technological process. In contrast, the current claims do not recite specific technological algorithm that improves computer technology, do not change how a computer performs credential verification at a technical level and no improvement to computer-based technology. Rather, the claims apply rule-based approval logic to data operations using conventional computing components. Accordingly, the present claims are different than those of McRO. IN conclusion, the claims are directed to abstract idea of managing and executing requests based on rule-based multi-party approval conditions. The additional elements simply implement the concept using generic components and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights