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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/26/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20 are pending in the application.
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 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction (i.e. advertising or sales activities, behaviors, or business relations)/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: accessing a first set of documents comprising text data /
each document from the first set of documents includes one or more semantic features / transforming the set of semantic features and the predicted set of semantic features into a set of lower-dimensional features / mapping the lower-dimensional features to a domain-specific language (DSL) rule to thereby generate a set of DSL rules and a predicted set of DSL rules / compiling the set of DSL rules and the predicted set of DSL rules to generate a set of executable rules and a predicted set of executable rules/ executing one or more executable rules of the executable rules and one or more predicted executable rules of the predicted set of executable rules against one or more documents from a second set of documents received to generate a response / storing the set of executable rules and the predicted set of executable rules / providing the response to a downstream operating service. Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “the set of documents is associated with user financial data…the response is associated with an alert of compliance or non-compliance with a predefined policy associated with at least one document”, “and based on user adjustable parameters to create a modified executable rules…storing the modified executable rule in the rules repository”, “At block 422, the processor can evaluate evaluation data with the executable rule. For example, rule execution engine 122 can receive evaluation data 104 as input. Evaluation data 104 can correspond to user data, customer complaints, financial transaction records, etc. received by a financial institution through the course of business. The rule execution engine can evaluate the evaluation data 104 using an appropriate executable rule extracted or retrieved from the rules repository 106.”, “One illustrative example of the present disclosure includes systems and methods for managing financial regulatory and compliance rules through a customized FRSL DSL. The techniques enable generation of executable rules stored in a generic rule repository where the executable rules are associated with regulatory requirements. As used herein, the regulatory requirements may be associated with predefined policies published or otherwise made available by regulatory agencies. An enterprise may use the executable rules to evaluate evaluation data (e.g., user/customer data) to determine compliance risks. Thus, the techniques described herein streamline compliance processes, enhance regulatory adherence, and facilitate automated monitoring and reporting for financial institutions.”, “A key aspect of the rule execution engine and services is the continuous, real-time monitoring of financial transactions and activities to ensure enterprise compliance with defined rules. Thus, the techniques provided by the present disclosure provide for a proactive approach to regulatory compliance through immediate detection, remediation, and dynamic compliance management as compared to legacy techniques, such as periodic checks and audits. Further, enhanced alerting provided as a part of downstream services enable immediate notification of potential issues (e.g., compliance/non-compliance issues) thus allowing for quicker resolution.”, “Further, the documents stored in database 102 may be associated with various types of data sources corresponding to financial regulatory requirements that are posted or otherwise made available by various financial regulatory agencies. For example, one financial regulatory agency may include the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and another financial regulatory agency may include the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Each agency may publish regulatory requirements that are imposed on enterprises.”, “As an example, a lower-dimensional feature extracted from a document from the set of documents may specify a timeframe where a complaint received by a financial institution must be reported to a regulatory agency (e.g., the FINRA or SEC).”, “At block 422, the processor can evaluate evaluation data with the executable rule. For example, rule execution engine 122 can receive evaluation data 104 as input. Evaluation data 104 can correspond to user data, customer complaints, financial transaction records, etc. received by a financial institution through the course of business. The rule execution engine can evaluate the evaluation data 104 using an appropriate executable rule extracted or retrieved from the rules repository 106.” Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: accessing a first set of documents comprising text data / each document from the first set of documents includes one or more semantic features / transforming the set of semantic features and the predicted set of semantic features into a set of lower-dimensional features / mapping the lower-dimensional features to a domain-specific language (DSL) rule to thereby generate a set of DSL rules and a predicted set of DSL rules/ compiling the set of DSL rules and the predicted set of DSL rules to generate a set of executable rules / executing one or more executable rules of the set of executable rules and one or more predicted executable rules of the predicted set of executable rules against one or more documents from a second set of documents received to generate a response / storing the set of executable rules. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements - see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of using NLP to extract / generate data ( ‘extracting a set of semantic features from the first set of documents using a first natural language processing (NLP) model’, ‘providing the first set of documents to a second NLP model, wherein the second NLP model is trained to identify historical patterns associated with the first set of documents’, ‘generating, using the second NLP model, a predictive set of regulatory documents having a predicted set of semantic features based on the historical patterns identified within the first set of documents’) / rules repository / semantic parser.
The repository/parser represent generic computing elements. Using NLP to extract / generate data
does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Using NLP to extract data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9, 17 are directed to a system and CRM, respectively, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 9, 17 perform the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 9, 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, 20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional elements of a publicly available database / a user interface, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20. Sunkle (20170061445) in further view of Ma (CN 114896407 A) teach: One or more processors; a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: accessing a first set of documents comprising text data; extracting a set of semantic features from the first set of documents using a first natural language processing (NLP) model of a rule builder engine, wherein each document from the first set of documents includes one or more semantic features; transforming the set of semantic features into a set of lower-dimensional features using a semantic parser of a rule builder engine ; mapping the lower-dimensional features to a domain-specific language (DSL) rule to thereby generate a set of DSL rules; compiling the set of DSL rules using a rules compiler module of the rules building engine to generate a set of executable rules; storing the set of executable rules in a rules repository for access by a rule execution engine, wherein one or more executable rules are executed against one or more documents from a second set of documents received by the rule execution engine to generate a response; and providing the response to a downstream operating service. However, they lack the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1, 9, 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the above rejections that the claims are directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more. Nevertheless, without conceding the correctness of the rejections and solely to advance prosecution, at least claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. The claims, as amended, are not directed towards any abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. The amended claims include additional elements and as a whole integrate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application. Specifically, claims 1, 9, and 17, as amended, and similarly claims 15 and 20, include additional elements that demonstrate that claim 1, as a whole, improves upon computational efficiency in enterprise computing systems with respect to automated parsing, dimensionality reduction, and structural translation of unstructured data into machine-executable rules. That is, the claimed techniques integrate a unique multi-model pipeline that combines predictive historical pattern modeling with high-to-low dimensional structural optimization via a semantic parser to dynamically generate executable domain-specific language (DSL) rules.
Unlike conventional systems that rely on highly inefficient, static manual rule conversion or computationally heavy, generic text-matching engines that suffer from scaling limitations
when processing high-dimensional semantic data, the claimed techniques rely on a dual-NLP
model architecture to project complex semantic text data into compact, lower-dimensional features that map cleanly to a customized DSL rule. The claimed techniques reduce computational processing overhead, memory footprint, and system latency during enterprise rule compilation and real-time execution against downstream message queues. Therefore, the claimed techniques do not recite purely abstract ideas. Rather, the claims recite concrete enhancements to computer functionality by leveraging coordinated machine learning models and semantic parsing structures to automatically predict, optimize, and compile complex compliance logic into a standardized, executable domain-specific repository. This approach enables more responsive, efficient, and scalable operation of enterprise governance networks, resulting in faster data processing, reduced latency, and optimized resource usage in practical environments. It is well-settled that claims which clearly improve computer functionality or another technical field are patent eligible. See, e.g., Enfish, LL C v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327. See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299. For at least the foregoing reasons the claims include additional elements and, as a whole, integrate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application by improving technology and a technical field. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed toward an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and amount to significantly more than just an abstract idea and any other judicial exception and thus are patent eligible.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “the set of documents is associated with user financial data…the response is associated with an alert of compliance or non-compliance with a predefined policy associated with at least one document”, “and based on user adjustable parameters to create a modified executable rules…storing the modified executable rule in the rules repository”, “At block 422, the processor can evaluate evaluation data with the executable rule. For example, rule execution engine 122 can receive evaluation data 104 as input. Evaluation data 104 can correspond to user data, customer complaints, financial transaction records, etc. received by a financial institution through the course of business. The rule execution engine can evaluate the evaluation data 104 using an appropriate executable rule extracted or retrieved from the rules repository 106.”, “One illustrative example of the present disclosure includes systems and methods for managing financial regulatory and compliance rules through a customized FRSL DSL. The techniques enable generation of executable rules stored in a generic rule repository where the executable rules are associated with regulatory requirements. As used herein, the regulatory requirements may be associated with predefined policies published or otherwise made available by regulatory agencies. An enterprise may use the executable rules to evaluate evaluation data (e.g., user/customer data) to determine compliance risks. Thus, the techniques described herein streamline compliance processes, enhance regulatory adherence, and facilitate automated monitoring and reporting for financial institutions.”, “A key aspect of the rule execution engine and services is the continuous, real-time monitoring of financial transactions and activities to ensure enterprise compliance with defined rules. Thus, the techniques provided by the present disclosure provide for a proactive approach to regulatory compliance through immediate detection, remediation, and dynamic compliance management as compared to legacy techniques, such as periodic checks and audits. Further, enhanced alerting provided as a part of downstream services enable immediate notification of potential issues (e.g., compliance/non-compliance issues) thus allowing for quicker resolution.”, “Further, the documents stored in database 102 may be associated with various types of data sources corresponding to financial regulatory requirements that are posted or otherwise made available by various financial regulatory agencies. For example, one financial regulatory agency may include the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and another financial regulatory agency may include the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Each agency may publish regulatory requirements that are imposed on enterprises.”, “As an example, a lower-dimensional feature extracted from a document from the set of documents may specify a timeframe where a complaint received by a financial institution must be reported to a regulatory agency (e.g., the FINRA or SEC).”, “At block 422, the processor can evaluate evaluation data with the executable rule. For example, rule execution engine 122 can receive evaluation data 104 as input. Evaluation data 104 can correspond to user data, customer complaints, financial transaction records, etc. received by a financial institution through the course of business. The rule execution engine can evaluate the evaluation data 104 using an appropriate executable rule extracted or retrieved from the rules repository 106.”
Instant claimed invention and Enfish have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Enfish, the Courts found that no abstract idea was present, that the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. The Courts further emphasized that the specification taught specific technical benefits over conventional databases. Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The instant claimed invention and McRO have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in McRO the Courts concluded that the claimed invention was not directed to an abstract idea under prong one of Alice. The Court concluded the subject claims did not recite an abstract idea because the computer animation improved the prior art through the use of rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1308. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be performed by human animators. Id. at 1313. Notably, the Court in McRO determined that the process required by the claims was not a process previously used by human animators. Id. at 1314. Therefore, the claims in McRO used "limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation techniques." Id. at 1316. Contrary to McRO, the instant claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea - see the detailed 35 USC 101 analysis above- and the claims do not recite a computer-automated process that uses rules for animators unlike those previously employed by humans or a similar type of improvement. Rather, the present claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea as discussed supra).
The pending claims, when implemented, do not improve the functioning of the computing device itself, nor do they improve other technology/technical field. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself, or other technology/technical field.
See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Specifically, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended to recite elements of dependent claims 5, 13, and 19, respectively, which, as stated in the Office Action dated March 27, 2026, have been indicated as novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Office Action, p. 17. Further, as agreed to by the Examiner during the Interview of June 23, 2026, such amendments overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. @ 103. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. @ 103 and allowance of the pending claims.
The prior art rejections of pending independent claims 1, 9, 17 have been overcome and have been withdrawn. The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20. Sunkle (20170061445) in further view of Ma (CN 114896407 A) teach: One or more processors; a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: accessing a first set of documents comprising text data; extracting a set of semantic features from the first set of documents using a first natural language processing (NLP) model of a rule builder engine, wherein each document from the first set of documents includes one or more semantic features; transforming the set of semantic features into a set of lower-dimensional features using a semantic parser of a rule builder engine ; mapping the lower-dimensional features to a domain-specific language (DSL) rule to thereby generate a set of DSL rules; compiling the set of DSL rules using a rules compiler module of the rules building engine to generate a set of executable rules; storing the set of executable rules in a rules repository for access by a rule execution engine, wherein one or more executable rules are executed against one or more documents from a second set of documents received by the rule execution engine to generate a response; and providing the response to a downstream operating service. However, they lack the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1, 9, 17.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights