DETAILED ACTION
Response received on May 06, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 15, and 16 have been amended and Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 10-14, 17-20 remain original. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 07/02/2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 05/06/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/762,156 was filed on 07/02/2024.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of May 06, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action. Applicant' s amendment’s filed May 06, 2026, with respect to Claim 1, 3, 6, 8-9, and 15-16 have been fully considered.
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, wherein the set of automated logics comprises coded rules constructed according to rule syntax patterns using a pattern matching configuration, and wherein the pattern matching configuration comprises variables associated with the target regulatory requirement; converting the decoded responses into machine-readable encoded data required for the target regulatory requirement; determining, based on execution of the set of automated logics, a compliance completeness status indicating whether the plurality of source data includes values for required source data fields used to derive the machine-readable encoded data 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, wherein the proceeding comprises, responsive to the compliance completeness status indicating that the plurality of source data includes the values for the required source data fields, submitting, to be published to the content administrator and the downstream systems, a data package comprising at least a portion of the plurality of source data, the decoded responses, and the machine-readable encoded data.
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 an integration into 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 and 4 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 and wherein the detecting of the event, the triggering of the transformation, the transforming, and the converting, take place in near real-time fashion. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 3 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the operations further comprises, in response to the detected event, triggering the transformation of the changed one or more source data to derive the decoded responses by applying the set of logics. In addition, the claims recite the same additional elements found in Claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A and Step 2B set for the for claim 1 applies equally here. Therefore, the dependent claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 5 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the detecting of the event, the triggering of the transformation, the transforming, and the converting, take place asynchronously. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 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 encoded data and wherein the machine-readable encoded data comprise different integers corresponding to the target regulatory requirement. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 9-10 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the operations further comprise constructing the coded rules based on the rule syntax patterns using pattern matching configuration and based on a plurality of variables associated with the target regulatory requirement and 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. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 11-13 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include 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, and 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. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 14 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include 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 claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 16-17 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the executing the event-listener program further comprises: 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, wherein the action comprises triggering the transforming of the collected in scope source data to derive the decoded responses by applying the set of logics and 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. In addition, the claims recite the same additional elements found in Claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A and Step 2B set for the for claim 1 applies equally here. Therefore, the dependent claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 18 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the decoded responses comprise human- readable answers and the machine-readable encoded data comprise different integers corresponding to the target regulatory requirement. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 19-20 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include further comprising: 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 enabling the content administrator to trigger an action that submits the generated data package to the downstream systems, 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 the same additional elements found in Claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A and Step 2B set for the for claim 1 applies equally here. Therefore, the dependent claims are patent ineligible.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 112(a) rejection are noted. Applicant amends independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and respectfully requests the Examiner withdraw the foregoing rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Examiner acknowledges the amendments and therefore withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for claims 1, 8, 15.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 8 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the claimed features of Claim 1, when considered as a whole, are not directed to merely “organizing human activity" or to a fundamental economic practice as asserted in the office action. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that claim 1, when considered as a whole, is directed to collecting, evaluating, transforming, and submitting regulatory compliance information, which constitutes managing legal and commercial interactions and thus falls within certain methods of organizing human activity, rather than a technological improvement to computer functionality itself. Applicant further argues that amended claim 1 is directed to a specific, computer-implemented data- processing pipeline for automated regulatory compliance package generation and that this is a specific technical implementation that constrains how the compliance data package is generated and published and is not merely a result-based recitation of compliance reporting. Examiner respectfully disagrees because as the claimed “data processing pipeline” merely automates the collection, evaluation, transformation, and submission of regulatory compliance information using generic computer implementation and rule-based processing, without reciting a specific improvement to computer functionality or a particular technological solution beyond achieving the abstract result of automated compliance reporting. Applicant further argues that claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The amended claims do not merely automate a manual compliance activity; instead claim 1 recites a particular technical implementation for generating and publishing a regulatory compliance data package, including a specific rules-based transformation/encoding framework and a completeness-gated publication mechanism that constrains the claim to a concrete application and imposes meaningful limits on the manner of achieving the result. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the recited rules-based transformation, encoding framework, and completeness-gated publication merely describe the automated application of regulatory rules and conditional data processing using generic computer components, which do not improve computer functionality or another technology, but instead implement the abstract idea of regulatory compliance management in a computerized environment.
Applicant further argues that under Step 2B, the additional elements are not "generic computer components" merely performing routine functions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the additional elements including the “a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “memory”, “automated logics”, are recited at a high-level of generality and perform their ordinary and expected computer functions of receiving, processing, analyzing, storing, and transmitting data, both individually and as an ordered combination, without amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself under Step 2B. Applicant further argues that the recited limitations reflect an ordered combination of elements that provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. These claimed features define how the system determines what to encode, how encoding readiness is computed, and when publication is permitted, thereby providing an inventive concept in the specific, computer-implemented manner in which regulatory submission packages are generated and published. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the recited coded rules construction, pattern matching configuration, compliance completeness determination, and conditional publication merely describe the use of generic computer processing to apply regulatory rules, analyze data readiness, and control submission of compliance information, which constitutes implementation of the abstract idea itself and does not amount to an inventive concept or a technological improvement under Step 2B. For the reasons mentioned above, the argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35USC 101 are maintained.
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
extension fee 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 date of this final
action.
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
Prosecution Insights