DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed on September 11, 2024, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for compliance management system using no-code approach.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 11 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “a compliance management processing a request from a compliance management client to provide a compliance management function using the approach, wherein the compliance management comprises: a unit policy management dividing evaluation items included in at least one compliance into unit policies based on a request of the compliance management client, storing the unit policies in a unit policy , and individually managing the unit policies; a compliance classification item management storing at least one hierarchical classification item of compliance in a compliance based on the request of the compliance management client, and managing the hierarchical classification item; a compliance evaluation item management placing at least one unit policy stored in the unit policy in a subcategory of the hierarchical classification item of compliance stored in the compliance based on the request of the compliance management client, creating a compliance hierarchical structure, and storing it in the compliance ; and an implementation inspection project management creating an implementation inspection project based on the compliance hierarchical structure based on the request of the compliance management client, storing the project in an implementation inspection compliance , and performing implementation inspection based on the implementation inspection project” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (management system, no-code, server, module, repository in claim 1; no-code, processor, server, repository in claim 11) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (management system, no-code, server, module, repository in claim 1; no-code, processor, server, repository in claim 11). The management system, no-code, server, module, repository in claim 1; no-code, processor, server, repository in claim 11, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the management system in claims 2-10; server in claims 2-3 and 12-13; module in claims 4, 7-9; repository in claim 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 12-13, 15, 17 and 19-20; Restful API, JPA Query Factory, Data transfer object in claim 2-3 and 12-13; FORM data in claims 3 and 13; management screen in claims 4-5, 8-9, 14-15 and 18-19; unique code in claims 6 and 16; , are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628