DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments and request for continued examination filed on September 24, 2025. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 25. Currently, claims 1-25 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/24/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-25 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 9/24/25 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 10 of the remarks that the 101 rejections are improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues on p. 11 of the remarks that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Applicant argues on p. 11-12 that the claims describe navigating documents in a workflow at an enterprise via an artificial intelligence engine and that the claims are like example 39 of the published USPTO examples. Examiner disagrees and notes that the claims recite the abstract idea of recite the abstract idea of a method to facilitate user guidance to risk relationship documents for an enterprise by receiving information from a user associated with the enterprise and accessing data records, each data record being associated with a risk relationship document and including a document identifier and a set of document metadata values and providing an ability for users to share, update, and communicate information, including the metadata values and receiving a selected document of the dynamically created sub-set and responsive to the selection, delivering the selected document and collecting user feedback and establishing and updating a business data repository that contains a repository data dictionary to store business information in human- readable text, including a column name, a column definition, and valid values for a column, the repository data dictionary being searchable via a plain text search and an ontology tagging element to tag users and components of the business data repository among each other and a repository schema for tables, columns, and cells and analyzing the user feedback and navigation paths within the selected document, and further wherein increased user experience increases weights assigned to navigation decisions during said analysis. Using an AI intelligence engine is a tool for implementing such abstract idea. Examiner notes claim 39 is distinguishable because facial image detection is necessarily rooted in technology which is what the AI is used for as opposed to the AI in applicant's claim which is used to implement an abstract idea related to risk documents for an business or enterprise. Applicant notes on p. 12 that navigating to the appropriate document may be time consuming and an error prone task. Examiner notes this improvement is related to the improvements of a generic computer for implementing the abstract idea but the computer itself is not improved nor a technical field. Examiner further notes that the integration of user click traffic is an additional element that provides another data point for performing the abstract idea and is also considered conventional and routine enterprise data. Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained.
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 1-25 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (system and method). Claims 1-25 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. Claims 1 and 25 recite the abstract idea of a method to facilitate user guidance to risk relationship documents for an enterprise by receiving information from a user associated with the enterprise and accessing data records, each data record being associated with a risk relationship document and including a document identifier and a set of document metadata values and providing an ability for users to share, update, and communicate information, including the metadata values and receiving a selected document of the dynamically created sub-set and responsive to the selection, delivering the selected document and collecting user feedback and establishing and updating a business data repository that contains a repository data dictionary to store business information in human- readable text, including a column name, a column definition, and valid values for a column, the repository data dictionary being searchable via a plain text search and an ontology tagging element to tag users and components of the business data repository among each other and a repository schema for tables, columns, and cells and analyzing the user feedback and navigation paths within the selected document, and further wherein increased user experience increases weights assigned to navigation decisions during said analysis. The claims are directed to guiding for users for navigating paths and facilitate risk relationships. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance and mitigating risk). The claims are a type of organized human activity including mitigating risk because the claims show guiding users which is a type of user activity and it is for guidance for generating risk relationship documents which can be considered related to mitigating risk. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as computerized, a document navigation computer, a risk relationship document data store, encrypted electronic data records, a computer processor, an interactive user interface, a remote user device, a navigation repository within the document navigation computer and collecting, by a feedback database, user feedback as a click traffic and automatically analyzing, via a general-purpose artificial engine, the user click traffic feedback to redesign graphical user interfaces and navigational paths within the selected document and to improve the general-purpose artificial intelligence engine, and further wherein increased user experience provides feedback and updates the general-purpose artificial intelligence engine by increasing weights assigned to navigational decisions during said analysis and wherein data elements gathered from any point in a navigation path are stored to a repository that serves as input to a general-purpose artificial intelligence engine that uses machine learning to generate continual improvement that automatically enhances guided navigation for data users by transmitting information via a security feature component and a distributed communication network to reduce a number of navigation paths that need to be processed) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as computerized, a document navigation computer, a risk relationship document data store, encrypted electronic data records, a computer processor, an interactive user interface, a remote user device, a navigation repository within the document navigation computer and collecting, by a feedback database, user feedback as a click traffic and automatically analyzing, via a general-purpose artificial engine, the user click traffic feedback to redesign graphical user interfaces and navigational paths within the selected document and to improve the general-purpose artificial intelligence engine, and further wherein increased user experience provides feedback and updates the general-purpose artificial intelligence engine by increasing weights assigned to navigational decisions during said analysis and wherein data elements gathered from any point in a navigation path are stored to a repository that serves as input to a general-purpose artificial intelligence engine that uses machine learning to generate continual improvement that automatically enhances guided navigation for data users by transmitting information via a security feature component and a distributed communication network to reduce a number of navigation paths that need to be processed (as evidenced by para [0030]-[0033], [0039], [0046], [0078], [0091] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, 16, 18-19, 22-24 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing product structure, a line of business classification, a business segment, and a data subject to facilitate navigation and wherein the system connects the user to an enterprise identity system to extract organizational affiliations and wherein underlying data assets are tagged at a schema, table, column, or cell level as needed to allow for recommendation based on parallel ontology for users and wherein users are tagged with an ontology that allows for a connection between the users and data assets based on parallel ontology for data assets and wherein users can design and structure new data elements to be implemented and used in insurance business processes and functions employing navigational functions and wherein users can administer creation and maintenance of data asset documentation and wherein users can review and affiliate themselves with other user profiles to facilitate reuse of similar user experiences based on self-defined role identification and wherein the system reuses classified user role experience to facilitate prevention of user error and escalation and reporting of data issues through an incident management system based on a parallel ontology for users and herein the system routinely validates and changes data asset documentation based on user comments, latest updates, and direct connection to data assets and wherein users can review navigation paths of other users and store an affiliation of themselves with such navigation paths for their own use and wherein the system scans data dictionaries of underlying business data assets as a mechanism of populating user navigation paths and presenting them to users for selection and identifies data subject matter experts based on stamps applied to their use to navigate future users through the most direct path based on their request and recommends users to subject matter experts who can help resolve data issues faster and can contribute in talent development across the enterprise and wherein at least one risk relationship document comprises a knowledge artifact associated with at least one of: (1) a user guide, (ii) a managed query, (iii) a table or column definition, (iv) a control report, (v) a known issue, and (vi) a data model. Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9, 12-15, 17, 20-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as document navigation computer and wherein tagging ontologies are persisted to an underlying data store in industry standard technologies that lets other software utilize the data for extended analysis, design, and implementation around the enterprise and , wherein users can redesign individual graphical user interface and navigational paths based on intended use and wherein the document navigation computer provides an asynchronous tool to let users to electronically exchange data content thoughts, 4theories, and questions using discussion threads and wherein the document navigation computer tracks an asynchronous tool’s top contributors and displays the list electronically and wherein the system retrieves some or all underlying business data assets for to guide a navigation path either through user feedback or artificial intelligence and wherein the document navigation computer uses persistent data in disk and an artificial intelligence engine to communicate the health of data assets through an outbound communication system and wherein the document navigation computer uses subscription information, navigation history, and artificial intelligence engine to customize outbound communication to users based on relevancy (as evidenced by para [0030]-[0033], [0039], [0046], [0078], [0091] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 20150242377 A1), a method for navigating an electronic document by displaying a navigation pane that includes a group of logical document elements associated with the electronic document and determining that the first user input is configured to select a first logical document element included in the group of logical document elements
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624