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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment received on 6/25/2026.Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 20 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.
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.
The applicant argues the claims improve chatbot technology by using a
privacy bot platform, chatbot-to chatbot communication, machine learning,
and automatic security measures. However, the claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of a computer, chatbot, machine learning model, or API. Instead, the claims use these components to collect information, analyze chatbot responses, determine whether privacy protected data has been exposed, and take action based on that determination. The privacy bot platform, chatbots, API communication, and machine learning model are used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not recite how these components are technically improved or operate differently from their ordinary functions.
Applicant also argues that the invention provides a technical solution by automatically testing chatbot systems and preventing future disclosure of protected data. Even though this may improve the effectiveness of privacy protection, it does not improve the computer technology. The improvement is directed to the detection enforcement of privacy rules rather than to the functioning of the computer or chatbot technology itself.
Applicant’s reliance on Finjan is not persuasive. In Finjan, the claims recited a specific improvement to computer security technology through a new security mechanism. IN the present application, the claims do not recite a new chatbot architecture, machine learning technique, API protocol, or computer security mechanism. Instead, they use known computer components to automate the detection of privacy data exposure and issue commands based on the results.
Applicant’s comparison to USPTO Example 40 is not persuasive. Example 40 improved the operation of a network monitoring itself by changing how network data was collected. IN contrast, the current claims do not improve chatbot communications, network operation, or computer performance. Rather, the current claims improve the process of identifying privacy data exposure. Even though, the specification describes the benefits such as faster detection, reduced manual effort and improved security. These benefits result from automating the abstract idea using generic computer components and are not reflected in the claims as a specific technological improvement. Accordingly, the claims remain directed to the abstract idea of evaluating chatbot responses, identifying privacy protected data, and taking action based on that evaluation. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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