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 filed on 9/16/2025. Claims 1,2,4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 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: the claims are directed to monitoring internal chat messages, identifying text patterns, comparing patterns to confidential information, detecting correlations (including time-based rules), and then alerting and blocking further messages. These operations fall within the recognized abstract idea groupings of, Mental process (collecting information, identifying patterns, comparing, correlating and making decision based on thresholds which are activities that can be performed in the human mind or suing pen and paper. Certain methods of organizing human activity (enforcing confidential-information sharing policies, i.e. compliance) which is similar to managing human behavior and organizational relationships. The recited components such as memory, processor and internal chatting platform are used as tools to perform the steps of the claim.
Step 2A, Prong Two: the claim uses generic computer components such as memory storing permissions, a processor that monitors, determines patterns, compares, correlates, generates alerts, and blocks, performing their ordinary functions. The steps are recited at a high level without any specific data structure, protocol levels mechanisms or changes to how the chat platform network stack or computer operates. There is no stated improvements to the functioning of the computer itself or computer technology.
Step 2B: the components such as processor, memory, chat platform are well understood, routine and conventional computer elements. The recited operations such as text monitoring, phrase detection, topic detection, threshold-based correlation, time window checks, alerting and blocking permission enforcement are conventional information processing and policy enforcement activities implemented on generic infrastructure. The claims do not recite any non-conventional arrangement of components or a specific technological solution that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology. Therefore, the amended claims are still rejected under 35 U.S. C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims cannot be performed by human
In response, the fact that the claims involve electronic messages and computing systems does not automatically overcome abstract ideas. The test is not what human can perform the process, but whether the claims is directed to an abstract idea (see Electric Power group v. Alstom, 830F.3d(Fed. Cir.2016), using computers to collect and analyze information does not make the claims patent eligible. Furthermore, filtering content based on rules is abstract even when performed by computers (intellectual ventures I v. Symantec).
Applicant argue that the claims go beyond organizing human activities.
In response, the claims are directed to organizing human activities, the claim
recites monitoring communications between people, identifying pattern in their communications, correlating communication timing with information access, and controlling future communications. This is essentially about managing and policing human information sharing behavior within an organization. The abstract idea is detecting and preventing unauthorized information sharing based on communication patterns and timing.
The mental processes is comparing information determining pattens and analyzing correlations, and certain method of organizing human activity is monitoring employee communications, controlling information flow and enforcing access policies (Berkheimer memo- managing access to data and detecting misuse are abstract).
The applicant argues that the claims are not a mental process.
In response, the claim limitations can be performed as mental process or pen and paper methods:
-Monitoring written communication (reading messages).
- determining text patterns (recognizing repeated topics or keywords)
- comparing patterns with confidential information (mental process)
- Determining correlations based on timing (tracking dates or times)
- Determining threshold instances met (counting).
The claims recite what is done and not how it is technically accomplished.
The applicant argues that the claims recite technical improvements.
In response, the claims do not recite technical improvements to computer functionality. There is improvement to computer performance, network security technology, no technical mechanism for detection and the computer is used as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
Conclusion: the amendment does not overcome the rejection. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two), and lack an inventive concept (Step 2B). Consequently, U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
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 on 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