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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4-12, and 15-20 are amended. Claims 3 and 14 are canceled. Claims 21 and 22 are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong Two that the additional elements define a specific operational workflow, and applicant does not address the additional elements as identified in the rejection. Applicant is characterizing the claims as defining an “operational workflow” and cites limitations that correspond to the abstract idea previously identified under Step 2A Prong One. The limitations (e.g., generating a support container in response to a change request, generating evidentiary requirement records that reference a support container identifier, automatically updating evidentiary requirements to reference corresponding evidentiary data record, etc. (see Applicant’s response, pg. 15-16), form part of the judicial exception/abstract idea and is not relied upon as “additional elements” for the purpose of Step 2A Prong Two. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the analysis is whether the claims includes additional elements beyond the abstract idea that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements are limited to generic computer components as identified in the Step 2A Prong Two section of the analysis. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, the 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument that the claims provide a technical solution through an “identifier-driven, hierarchical evidentiary data architecture directly into the operation of the computing system” is also unpersuasive. The terminology used to describe the alleged solution does not reflect an improvement in the operation of a computer system. The generating data, association of user-provided evidentiary requirement identifiers for the record, linking information, validating data, etc., corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity since it merely describes the function of organizing and processing information based on defined processes or rules. The “architecture” may reflect the manner in which the information is organized and used, but not an improvement in computer functionality.
Applicant’s argument that the enablement of reuse of previously stored data constitutes a technological improvement to computerized evidentiary management systems because it changes how the system stores and links data over time, reduces unnecessary storage operations, and preserves evidentiary traceability across multiple change cycles without human intervention, is also unpersuasive. The “reuse mechanism” is indicative of organization, storage, and retrieval of information over time. The activities and argument correspond to managing and tracking data using certain rules, instructions, or processes which still fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The argument for reduction of unnecessary storage operations is merely a consequence of reusing existing data, and at best reflects an efficiency in data management, not an improvement to computers functionality. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. In conclusion, the reuse mechanism relates to the storage and retrieval of existing data, the hierarchical linking related to relationships between the data, the traceability corresponds to tracking data and/or record-keeping, thus, any alleged improvement is an improvement to information/data or improvement in the business process, but not an improvement in computers or technology.
Regarding applicant’s final argument under Step 2A Prong Two, the argument is unpersuasive. As indicated in a previous response above, associating evidentiary data with identifiers, linking and reusing data, evaluating conditions relating to compliance, and causing actions to be performed based on the evaluation and observation of data fall with the abstract ideas (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) under Step 2A Prong One. The benefits that applicant allege such as reduced redundancy and automated decision making are the expected results of applying the defined data organization and evaluation provided in the claims, and the results of applying the limitations that correspond to the judicial exception via a computer. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The claims do not recite any specific technological mechanism that changes how the computer operates at a technical level. Instead, the claims illustrate that the claims rely on generic computing components to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, applicant argues that the claims amount to "significantly more" than any allegedly recited judicial exception because the claims recite combinations that go well beyond any well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. This argument is unpersuasive. Whether the claims recite well-understood, routine, or conventional activity is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, 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 not patent eligible.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 13, filed 03/10/2023, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
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, 2, 4-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 12, 13, 15-19, 21, and 22 recite an apparatus (i.e. machine), and claim 20 recites a computer program product (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-22 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 recite the limitations of receiving a change request comprising (a) a project identifier and (b) a change request type; in response to receiving the change request, generating, by data management circuitry, a [support container], wherein (a) the [support container] references the project identifier and (b) the [support container] is associated with a support container identifier; generating based on the change request type, a plurality of evidentiary requirements, wherein (a) each evidentiary requirement of the plurality of evidentiary requirements reference the support container identifier and (b) each evidentiary requirement is associated with an evidentiary domain; receiving an evidentiary data record associated with the change request and a user-provided evidentiary requirement identifier for the evidentiary data record; identifying a particular evidentiary requirement of the plurality of evidentiary requirements that corresponds to the user-provided evidentiary requirement identifier; updating the particular evidentiary requirement to reference the evidentiary data record; determining whether the project identifier is referenced by a [historical support container]; in response to determining that the project identifier is referenced, identifying a historical evidentiary requirement that references the [historical support container] and is associated with a same evidentiary domain as the particular evidentiary requirement; determining that a historical evidentiary data record referenced by the historical evidentiary requirement satisfies each requisite for the particular evidentiary requirement; and in response to determining that the historical evidentiary data record satisfies each requisite, updating the particular evidentiary requirement to reference the historical evidentiary data record. The invention and claims are drawn towards to a process of automatically processing documentation and providing the progress data to stakeholders and the claim limitations directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations; managing personal interactions, following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations that detail a change request (which is submitted by a user), generating based on the change request type a plurality of evidentiary requirements, receiving an evidentiary data record associated with the change request and a user-provided evidentiary requirement identifier for he evidentiary data record, identifying a particular evidentiary requirement of the plurality of evidentiary requirements that corresponds to the user-provided evidentiary requirement identifier, and several additional limitations of the claim that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims also directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations that detail in response to receiving the change request, generating [a support container], wherein (a) [the support container] references the project identifier and (b) [the support container] is associated with a support container identifier; generating based on the change request type, a plurality of evidentiary requirements, wherein (a) each evidentiary requirement of the plurality of evidentiary requirements reference the support container identifier and (b) each evidentiary requirements is associated with an evidentiary domain; receiving an evidentiary data record associated with the change request and a user-provided evidentiary requirement for the evidentiary data record; identifying a particular evidentiary requirement of the plurality of evidentiary requirements that correspond to the user-provided evidentiary requirement identifier, all of which involves the evaluation and observation of information or data, and making a determination (judgment or opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data. Therefore, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: communications hardware, data management circuitry, a support container, a historical support container, and a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, 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 not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 13 recites the limitation of storing the evidentiary data record in a [designated storage repository]. The claims are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recites the additional elements of the data management circuitry, the and designated storage repository. The additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. 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. Further, 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 not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9 recite the limitations of receiving, an additional change request comprising (a) the project identifier and (b) a change request type for the additional change request; in response to receiving the additional change request, generating [an additional support container], wherein (a) [the additional support container] references the project identifier and (b) [the additional support container] is associated with an additional support container identifier; and generating based on the change request type, an additional evidentiary requirement, wherein (a) the additional evidentiary requirement references the additional support container identifier and (b) the additional evidentiary requirement is associated with an evidentiary domain. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of the communications hardware, the data management circuitry, and an additional support container. The additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites the limitations of determining an institutional standard for the change request type wherein the institutional standard defines an expected time frame during a status of the particular evidentiary requirement is expected to reflect a completed status; determining a violation of the institutional standard in response to the status not reflecting a completed status during the expected time frame; and in response to determining the violation, providing [a violation alert], wherein [the violation alert] is indicative of the institutional standard associated with the violation and the particular evidentiary requirement. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of the communications hardware, data management circuitry, and a violation alert. The communications hardware and data management circuitry amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. The violation alert amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (providing updated progress data to stakeholders in automatic documentation processing). 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-8, 11, 15-19, 21, and 22 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 4-8, 11, 15-19, 21, and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Baker (2017/0193240), which generally discloses an automated means for validating evidence required in a change process associated with authorized data sources. The automated means is configured to provide a user indication of the progress towards acceptable completion of each phase of the evidence validation process. While the reference discloses much of the claims of the applicant’s invention, the reference does not appear to discloses the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “Digital Chain of Custody Operational Framework” (Pestana, et. al.; 2024) which discloses a standardized digital chain of custody process that safeguards digital evidence’s integrity, enhances transparency, and fosters accountability. The publication discuses digital custody metadata (DCM), specifying transfer purposes and prompting custodianship at Custody Transfer Points (CTPs). The publication aims to resolve issues relating to the conventional evidentiary standards that inadequately audit digital evidence metadata, which creates discrepancies between traditional and digital custody. Further, digital evidence presents unique features that further complicate its administration such as the ease of duplication, transfer, alteration, and deletion of digital data, making it susceptible to contamination. The reference does not appear to discloses the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
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 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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights