DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the reply filed on 01/07/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this Action.
Remark
In the response filed 01/07/2026, claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended, no claim has been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument in page 3 of the Remark that
… the Present Application is directed to the practical application of automatic management of purpose-based processing using a purpose hierarchy and does so through specific technical operations that require advanced computing methods to perform. Applicant respectfully submits, that as with Ex Parte Desjardins, the Present Application identifies various types of improvement to computer functionality.
First, Applicant respectfully submits that the Present Application is directed to improvements in computer technology involving automatic data management with respect to enabling automatic management of different retention periods. For example, as described in the Present Application at [0023]:
Dependent purposes can be automatically applied to a data object in response to the data object being associated with the parent purpose, which can be faster and less resource intensive than other approaches, such as approaches that involve scanning a database to evaluate whether additional purpose assignments should occur based on conditions of data in a data table. For instance, a tax audit purpose may be automatically assigned to a data object representing an employee based on a payroll purpose being assigned to the data object. Alternative approaches may involve scanning a database to determine that a salary payment has been applied to the employee, in order to determine that tax audit also now applies. (Emphasis Added).
With respect to Ex Parte Desjardins, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims reflect these improvements described in the specification…
MPEP 2106.05(a) points out some examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality, such as:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Merely using a computer to perform an abstract idea, e.g., applying the functionality of a computer and bar code system in the context of processing returned mail, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, --, -- USPQ2d --, -- slip op. at 33 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017);
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iv. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant in the specification indicates that “[t]he use of data categories and purpose-action assignments can simplify how customers reach compliance with data privacy regulations, by reducing reliance on inconsistent or error-prone manual approaches” (specification, paragraph 22). As such, the specification acknowledges that main concept of the current invention could be implemented mentally using “manual approaches.” Consequently, making these manual approaches “automatic” results in “reducing reliance on inconsistent or error-prone manual approaches.” Here, in the claims (e.g., claim 1), the applicant tries to make the recited mental processes non-abstract by using term “automatically” and “a processing unit of computing device” and “at least one electronic data repository”.
As established in Step 2A, Prong 1, under the broadest and reasonable interpretation of claim (BRI), the steps of determining using purpose hierarchy…, assigning, each of the at least one dependent purpose to the data object, determining of each dependent purpose…, and blocking are recited at a high level of generality and construe the concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgement which could be performed by a human.
The Examiner holds that, merely adding the term “automatically” or adding a generic computer component to the method steps (e.g., “automatically determining, by the processing unit and using purpose hierarchy, that the purpose a parent purpose…,” “automatically assigning, by the processing unit, each of the at least one dependent purpose to the data object”, “automatically determining, by the processing unit, of reach dependent purpose…”, “automatically blocking, by the processing unit…”) of claim 1 does not make the steps to be performed purely by a computer. In another word, adding the term “automatically” or a generic computer to a mental process does not render the mental process as a computer function and non-abstract.
As such, just adding the term “automatically” and using a generic computer to perform the claimed steps do not render these mental processes non-abstract. As mentioned above, the courts have determined mere automation of a manual process and using a generic computer to perform an abstract idea are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality.
Moreover, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s allegation that “that the Present Application is directed to improvements in computer technology involving automatic data management with respect to enabling automatic management of different retention periods.” The Examiner holds that improvement in “automatic data management” or data analysis is not equivalent to improvement in computer functioning or other technology. The process of data management or data analysis could be preformed mentally. A human is capable of managing and analyzing data, even though it might be complex or cumbersome. Merely making this process of data management “automatic” using a generic computer does not improve a manner in which a computer functions or computer technology.
Moreover, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the second applicant’s reason that:
Second, Applicant respectfully submits that the Present Application is directed to improvements in computer technology involving automatic data management with respect to enabling automatic management of different retention periods. For example, with the claimed solution, "use of dependent purposes can enhance personal data management" ... "by enabling object data blocking and object data destruction according to different retention periods between parent and related child purposes. In general, dependent purposes can help control for which purposes data can be processed." Present Application at [0023]. With the claimed solution, "a dynamic determination may be performed to determine whether a dependent purpose applies at a certain point in time." Id. at [0105]….
As explained above, the alleged improvement in “automatic data management” or data analysis is not equivalent to improvement in computer functioning or other technology. The process of data management or data analysis could be preformed mentally. A human is capable of managing and analyzing data, even though it might be complex or cumbersome. Merely making the process of “different retention periods” automatic using a general purpose computer is not sufficient to improve a manner in which a computer functions or computer technology. The features such as “use of dependent purpose” and "by enabling object data blocking and object data destruction according to different retention periods between parent and related child purposes. In general, dependent purposes can help control for which purposes data can be processed” do not require a computer to be implemented and could be mental processes. As such, said features are not capable of improving the manner in which a
computer functions or other computer technologies.
Furthermore, with respect to the applicant’s allegation of using “a purpose hierarchy” and “specific technical operations that require advanced computing methods to perform” (e.g., enabling object blocking, dynamic determination, use of data categories and purpose-action assignments), the Examiner contends that based on broadest and reasonable interpretation (BRI) said “purpose hierarch” and advanced operations are not required to be “computer operations.” They could be mental processes. Operations such dynamically determination of a feature, enabling object blocking or using and assigning purpose categories are processed that involve observation, evaluation, and/or judgments that could be practically be performed in the human mind. As such, the above-mentioned features (e.g., enabling object blocking, dynamic determination, use of data categories and purpose-action assignments) could be could be mental processes practically being performed in the human mind.
Moreover, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the third applicant’s reason that:
Third, Applicant respectfully submits that the Present Application is directed to improvements in computer technology involving automatic compliance regarding data privacy regulations. For example, as described in the Present Application at [0022], "[t]he use of data categories and purpose-action assignments can simplify how customers reach compliance with data privacy regulations, by reducing reliance on inconsistent or error-prone manual approaches." Furthermore, the claimed solution "can also help ensure that personal data concerning certain data subjects is processed with a higher data protection level than other approaches, since the solutions increase compliance when implemented." Id.
As explained above, merely making a mental or manual process automatic using a general purpose computer does not improve a manner in which a computer functions or computer technology. The features such as checking and increasing compliance regarding data privacy does not require a computer to be implemented and could be a mental process. It is well-within human capability to check whether particular data is compliance with privacy regulations without requiring a computer. As such, said feature is not capable of improving the manner in which a computer functions or other computer technologies. Additionally, the alleged advantages such as reduction in inconsistency and errors in management of purpose-based processing and automatically applying dependent purposes to a data object in response to the data object being associated with the parent purpose, which can be faster and less resource intensive than other approaches come from the capability of a general-purpose computer which is not sufficient to show an improvement in functionality of a computer or other technology, such as 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. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the fourth applicant’s reason that:
Fourth, Applicant respectfully submits that the Present Application is directed to improvements in computer technology involving automatic audit processing. For example, the Present Application recites, at [0024]:
Furthermore, in some implementations, purpose information, including dependent purpose information, can be stored in association with data which can result in easier data generation for an audit as compared to other approaches in which dependent purposes are not directly linked to data. For example, retrieving data associated with a tax audit purpose can be performed by simply filtering on the dependent tax audit purpose, rather than by determining data associated with
purposes that implicitly map to the tax audit dependent purpose
Again, automation of an audit process using a generic computer is not considered to be an improvement in computer technology. The features auding (e.g., tax auditing) does not require a computer to be implemented and could be a mental process. It is well-within human capability to audit data such tax data without requiring a computer. As such, said feature is not capable of improving the manner in which a computer functions or other computer technologies. The courts have determined that aaccelerating 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. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality.
In conclusion, a person can receive a function, perform the function for a purpose that includes a retention period. The person can additionally observe, evaluate, and judge several determinations processes such as, determining that the first purpose is a parent purpose…, determining, as dependent purpose data categories…, determining, for each dependent purpose of the at least one dependent purpose…, and determining that an end of purpose has been reached for the first purpose. The person can further manually block or stop data according the prior observations, evaluations, and judgments. As it can be seen, based on broadest and reasonable interpretation, the claimed invention does not require a computer and could be performed in the human mind.
As such, based on BRI, the implementation of the current claimed invention is not limit to a computer implementation. It can be performed mentally. In order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Moreover, mere automating a mental process and using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea are not sufficient to improve a computer function or technology.
Therefore, the features of current claim invention are not sufficient to improve computer functionality or other technologies. Thus, the claim invention fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 for being directed to abstract idea is 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method/system/product which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite the steps of:
determining, using a purpose hierarchy, that the first purpose is a parent purpose in the purpose hierarchy and that at least one dependent purpose is associated with the first purpose in the purpose hierarchy as a child purpose of the first purpose; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
assigning, each of the at least one dependent purpose to the data object; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person could mentally and manually assign a purpose to an object]
performing the processing action for the data subject for the first purpose using data of a first set of parent data categories that define categories of personal data in at least one electronic data repository that are allowed to be used when performing the processing action for arc associated with the first purpose, wherein the first purpose has a first retention period that specifies that data of the first set of parent data categories is to be retained in a blocked state in at least one electronic data repository after the processing action for the first purpose has completed; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally perform the requested function for the purpose. The purpose can have a retention period]
determining for each dependent purpose of the at least one dependent purpose, a respective subset of dependent data categories that is a subset of the set of parent data categories and that with define categories of personal data that are allowed to be used when performing a respective processing action for the dependent purpose; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
determining, for each dependent purpose of the at least one dependent purpose, a respective dependent purpose retention period for the dependent data categories of the dependent purpose, wherein at least one dependent purpose retention period is longer than the first retention period for the first purpose; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
determining that an end of purpose has been reached for the first purpose; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
, blocking data of the set of parent data categories in response to determining that the end of purpose has been reached for the first purpose; [involves concepts observation, evaluation, and judgments that could practically be performed in the human mind. A person can manually block or stop data]
identifying a non-dependent subset of parent data categories that are not dependent purpose data categories; [constitutes an evaluation concept which could be practically performed in the human mind]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, (other than reciting a processing unit of a computing device, one electronic data repository, general purpose computer, and medium in the claims), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recites generic computer components (e.g., a processing unit of a computing device, one electronic data repository, one or more computers, and/or storage medium) to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer components are 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 and considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity.
Furthermore, the claims recite the steps of “receiving, at a processing unit of a
computing device, a purpose assignment request to assign a first purpose to a data object representing a data subject;” and “receiving, at the processing unit, a request to perform a processing action for the data object representing the data subject for the first purpose” which are considered to be an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Additionally, simply adding the term “automatically” to the above step of “blocking data…” (i.e., “automatically, blocking, by the processing unit and in at least one electronic data repository, data of the first set of data categories…”) would be mere automation of a manual using a generic computer that is recited at a high level of generality which as determined by the courts is not sufficient to show improvement in a computer functionality. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See 2106.05(a)
Moreover, the steps of “automatically retaining, by the processing unit, data differently for different subsets of the data used to perform the processing action, wherein the retaining include:…retaining, by the processing unit and in the at least one electronic data repository, data having a data category in the non-dependent subset of parent data categories in a blocked state according to the first retention period; and retaining, by the processing unit and in the at least one electronic data repository, data having a data category in the subset of dependent data categories for a given dependent purpose in the blocked state according to a corresponding dependent retention period of the given dependent purpose” are considered to be insignificant extra post-solution activities of storing data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites generic computer components (e.g., a processing unit of a computing device, one electronic data repository, one or more computers, and/or storage medium) to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer components are 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 and considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity.
Furthermore, the claims recite the steps of “receiving, at a processing unit of a computing device, a purpose assignment request to assign a first purpose to a data object representing a data subject;” and “receiving, at the processing unit, a request to perform a processing action for the data object representing the data subject for the first purpose” are considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Additionally, simply adding the term “automatically” to the above step of “blocking data…” (i.e., “automatically, blocking, by the processing unit and in at least one electronic data repository, data of the first set of data categories…”) would be mere automation of a manual using a generic computer that is recited at a high level of generality which as determined by the courts is not sufficient to show improvement in a computer functionality. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-
97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See 2106.05(a). Therefore, the claims are not
patent eligible.
Moreover, the steps of “automatically retaining, by the processing unit, data differently for different subsets of the data used to perform the processing action, wherein the retaining include:…retaining, by the processing unit and in the at least one electronic data repository, data having a data category in the non-dependent subset of parent data categories in a blocked state according to the first retention period; and retaining, by the processing unit and in the at least one electronic data repository, data having a data category in the subset of dependent data categories for a given dependent purpose in the blocked state according to a corresponding dependent retention period of the given dependent purpose” are considered to be well-understood, conventional, and routine activities of storin data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims. The dependent claims additional elements are either data description (defining categories) or steps (e.g., retaining, destroying, defining) that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
03/13/2026