DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed 5 May 2026 (hereinafter “Reply”) has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 5-20 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because one or more portions of figure 24 are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Priority
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are not entitled to the benefit of prior-filed Application No. 18/486,753.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120. The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior-filed application (nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the prior-filed application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 5, there is a lack of support for at least the following limitations: “receiving a selection of a plurality of XBRL facts included in the XBRL document; and displaying, for each of the plurality of review statuses, a number of the selected XBRL facts having that review status applied.” The prior-filed application does not disclose these limitations for at least the same reasons provided below with respect to the disclosure of the instant application.
Claims 6-7 depend on claim 5, and thus are not supported for at least the reasons given above.
Claims 12-14 and 19-20 are also not supported for at least the same reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, there does not appear to be adequate support for the following newly added limitations: “receiving a selection of a plurality of XBRL facts included in the XBRL document; and displaying, for each of the plurality of review statuses, a number of the selected XBRL facts having that review status applied.”
Applicant should specifically indicate support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. MPEP §§ 2163(II)(A)(3)(b), 2163.06(I). Applicant has not specifically indicated support for the newly added claim limitations. Furthermore, a review by the Examiner of the original disclosure failed to find sufficient description of these limitations.
Claims 6-7 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 5, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claims 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 101:
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 8 is directed to a system comprising a “processor.” Applicant has provided not limiting definition of “processor” and even states that a processor may be “a cloud-based computing unit.” Specification ¶ 54. Furthermore, Applicant has specifically defined the system to comprise modules and components that “can be implemented as software, hardware, firmware, or a combination thereof.” Id. Accordingly, the claimed processor does not appear to be necessarily a hardware component. Thus, the recited apparatus is computer software per se, and is not a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03(I).
Claims 9-14 depend on claim 8, and thus are not supported for at least the reasons given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights