DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are currently pending and considered below.
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 Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on July 02, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/762,156 was filed on 07/02/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 8, and 15 recites “transforming the plurality of source data to derive decoded responses by applying a set of automated logics that implements a compliance to the target regulatory requirement” which is unclear and ambiguous. The phrase “set of automated logics” is itself undefined and provides no indication of the structure, rules, or decision criteria being applied. Further, the claim does not identify what is means to “implement compliance” with a target regulatory requirement, nor does it specify how compliance is evaluated, enforced, or measured during the transforming step. This lack of clarity prevents a determination of the claim’s scope with reasonable certainty, rendering the claim indefinite. Clarification/ Correction is needed.
Claim 1, 8, and 15 also recites “proceeding to encoded data submission to be published” is unclear and ambiguous. “Encoded data” is an object rather than a process step, and thus one cannot “proceed to” it, which makes it unclear for one of ordinary skill in the art determine what technical action is required or when the limitation is satisfied. Clarification/ Correction is needed.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1‐7 are directed to a device (machine), Claims 8-14 are directed to non-transitory machine-readable medium (apparatus/machine), and Claims 15-20 are directed to a method (process). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 8 and 15. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A device, comprising: a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: collecting a plurality of source data having a scope defined by a target regulatory requirement; transforming the plurality of source data to derive decoded responses by applying a set of automated logics that implements a compliance to the target regulatory requirement; converting the decoded responses into machine-readable encoded data required for the target regulatory requirement; and proceeding to encoded data submission to be published to a content administrator and downstream systems of the automated regulatory compliance data package generation system.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. commercial interactions include agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the processing system and associated computer components, this claim encompasses actions such as collecting source data scoped to a target regulatory requirement, transforming the source data by applying automated compliance logics to derive decoded responses, etc., which are steps that could conventionally be performed manually by compliance officers, regulatory analysts, or reporting personnel as part of a common regulatory compliance assessment and filing process. The specification [0003] states “Compliance to the Dodd Frank 1017, through an extensive manual process, is prone to an inconsistent application of regulatory procedures”, which supports that the invention can be done manually by humans and is merely automated using generic computer components, confirming that the computer is only used as a tool to carry out the abstract concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “a device”, “a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “memory”, “automated logics”, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional element of the claims are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 recites the additional element of “a device”, “a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “memory”, “automated logics”, and Claim 8 recites “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “processor”, “automated logics”, “an automated generation system of regulatory compliance data package”. Claim 15 recites “a processing system an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claimed invention recites additional elements (“a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “memory”, “automated logics”) that appears to be used in their ordinary capacity as generic computing components for processing data, storing information, and facilitating data generation, without any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or a transformation of any particular technology. The additional elements are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to technical environment. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A). Accordingly, 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 and are at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements (“a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “memory”, “automated logics”) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. The automated regulatory compliance data package generation system performs generic function of storing and processing data is generic function of known processing systems. Thus, this does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the operations further comprise detecting an event based on a change to one or more source data of the plurality of source data, in response to the detected event, triggering the transformation of the changed one or more source data to derive the decoded responses, wherein the detecting of the event, the triggering of the transformation, the transforming, and the converting, take place in near real-time fashion, wherein the detecting of the event, the triggering of the transformation, the transforming, and the converting, take place asynchronously. The dependent claims 2-5 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 6-7, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the decoded responses comprise human-readable answers and the encoded data comprise machine-readable values and wherein the machine-readable encoded data comprise different integers corresponding to the target regulatory requirement. The dependent claims 6-7 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 9-14, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the operations further comprise constructing coded rules based on rule syntaxes using a pattern matching configuration and based on a plurality of variables associated with the target regulatory requirement, wherein the operations further comprise staging the one or more source data as normalized name and value pairs, and the detecting the event further comprises detecting the change from the staged one or more source data, wherein the operations further comprise executing an event-listener model by: in response to the detected event directed to source data of a first category, triggering transformation of the source data of the first category; and triggering no transformation of the one or more source data of a rest of the different categories having no change, wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the one or more source data is relevant to the target regulatory requirement; and upon the determination, automating the generation of the package, wherein the operations further comprise: enabling the first user system to review content of the generated package, wherein the review by the first user system is specific to a particular point in time; and enabling the first user system to trigger an action that submits the generated package to the second user system, wherein the operations further comprise generating a new package using the content of the generated package, wherein the new package includes a modification relevant to a new target regulatory requirement. The dependent claims 9-14 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 16-20, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include detecting, the event based on a change to one or more source data among the collected in scope source data; and in response to the detected event, triggering, an action responding to the detected event receiving, an error topic from the downstream systems, wherein the error topic includes at least a portion of rejected data based on data quality, a business rule, a system error, or a combination thereof, wherein the decoded responses comprise human-readable answers comprise different integers corresponding to the target regulatory requirement, enabling,, the content administrator to review content of the generated data package, wherein the review by the content administrator is specific to a particular point in time; and generating, a new package using the content of the generated data package, wherein the new package includes a modification relevant to a new target regulatory requirement. In addition, the claims recite new additional elements of “the processing system”, which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the subject matter which is present in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
In regards to Claims 1, 8, and 15 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Hart et al. (US20200410583):
Hart et al. teaches a device, comprising: a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system including a processor; (See [0008]) and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising (See [0041]-[0044]): collecting a plurality of source data having a scope defined by a target regulatory requirement; (See [0077]) and proceeding to encoded data submission to be published to a content administrator and downstream systems of the automated regulatory compliance data package generation system (See [0182]).
However, Hart et al. alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious transforming the plurality of source data to derive decoded responses by applying a set of automated logics that implements a compliance to the target regulatory requirement; converting the decoded responses into machine-readable encoded data required for the target regulatory requirement, when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 8, and 15 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Durvasula et al. (US 20250252450) discloses automating determination of regulatory compliance of financial accounts and/or transactions.
Nair et al. (US 20200219111) discloses managing regulatory compliance for an entity in a computing environment by a processor. A law, policy, regulation, or a combination thereof extracted from one or more segments of text data from one or more data sources may be identified requiring an obligation to be performed by the entity.
Argyros et al. (US 2019018829) discloses for managing compliance data systems. A file is received from a data source. At least one obligation protocol from content of the file is identified. The content file is stored in a first database in response to determining that the at least one obligation protocol is indicative of an optional obligation protocol.
Broadbent et al. (US 20010047326) discloses provides a solution to the needs described above through a system and processes to be used in the mortgage industry for combining an Loan Application System with an automated Compliance Engine used for generating and monitoring a set of required procedures involved in moving and tracking a mortgage loan through one or more of the steps of `originate`, `approve`, `close`, `fund`, and `ship`.
Kidambi et al. (US 20250278547) discloses a method may include generating an API call to a collaborative document creation platform, the API call requesting comments made with respect to a document hosted by the collaborative document creation platform; transmitting the API call to the collaborative document creation platform; in response to the transmitting, receiving from the collaborative document creation platform.
All sources listed above are relevant to the disclosed and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626