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 1/6/2026.Claims 1, 4, 11, and 18. 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.
Claim 1 is drawn to system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), Claim 11 is drawn to method (i.e., a process), and claim18 is drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 11, and 18 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: the claims recite limitations that fall into the Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity categories. The claims recite operations such as, initiating a privacy protection process; determining and instantiating chatbots; generating a question using machine learning model; querying one chatbot using a question; receive a response; identifying privacy protected response. These limitations individually and in combination, reflect a process of gathering ana analyzing information and evaluating results to determine whether privacy sensitive data has been exposed. These steps describe functions that could be performed in the human mind (posing questions, interpreting answers and determining if private data is present), or by human using pen and paper. Therefore, these steps fall within the judicial exception of mental processes. See 2019 PEG, Section III.A.1; see also electric Group LLCv. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, these steps are directed to the administration of privacy rules monitoring communications, which are examples of methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, compliance or risk analysis) which is another exception category under the PEG.
Step 2A, Prong Two: the claims do not recite additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements such as processor, non-transitory memory, a machine model, machine, and chatbots that are described and claimed in purely generic functional terms and are used to implement the abstract idea. There is no indication that the claimed invention improves the functioning of the computer or another technology. The claims use generic computing environment to automate processes that are could be carried mentally. The use of the ML model is recited at a high level of abstraction without any technical details about the model’s architecture, training methodology or performance optimization.
Step 2B: when the elements of the claims considered individually and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The use of the components to perform the abstract function does not add meaningful limitations to the claims. Therefore, there is no additional element to combination of elements that amounts to an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter. Finally, the claims are directed to abstract idea (mental process and methods of organizing human activity) without reciting significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the limitations of the amended claims integrate the exception into a practical limitation and are thus statutory under Step 2A, Prong Two. The amended claims provide practical application that improvs over the prior systems. Applicant asserts that the amended claims include several limitations that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea when taken individually and in combination. Applicant further asserts that the amended claims include several limitations that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical limitation as required under the current guidance and reinforced in the USPTO Memo of August 4, 2025.
Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. While the applicant argues the limitations are integrated into a practical application, the August 2025 Memo cautions examiners not to oversimplify claims but also requires consideration of whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely a as tool to transform an existing process. The current claims essentially automate the existing of compliance testing process using generic computer components. The claims do not address a technical problem, privacy compliance testing is a business and regulatory problem that exist independent of computer technology. The claim recites applying generic ML and chatbot technology to a business problem. The limitations amount to generic data collection, analysis and response steps using conventional technology. Automation of an abstract idea is not sufficient for eligibility.
The examiner maintains that the claims do not improve technology or any technical field. There is no improvement to chatbot technology, or ML models or enhancement to communication protocols. The claims apply existing chatbot and ML technology to a new use of privacy compliance testing. According to July 2024 guidance, merely linking an abstract idea to a particular field of use within the claim is insufficient without technological improvement. The august 2025 Memo states that the specification does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of the ordinary skilled in the art. Here, there is no technical improvement.
In conclusion the claims use generic computer technology to automate an abstract business/compliance process. The claims do not solve a technical problem, not improve any computer functionality or technology. Therefore, the claim rejections under 34 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 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