DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Application 18/953,799 was filed 11/20/2024, and claims priority to provisional application 63/624,463 filed 01/24/2024.
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 10/23/2025. Claims 1-25 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2025 was filed after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-25 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 1-25 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and computing device for managing work records by managing a collaborative environment and displaying information. For Claims 1 and 16 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
by […], receiving a network address of the website;
accessing the website to identify an initial set of content presentation locations within the website that each include a regulated content item by at least:
accessing a content presentation profile[…] that stores a plurality of content presentation profiles that each correspond to a website template that specifies a structure of one or more corresponding websites including specifying content presentation locations of content items within the corresponding websites;
determining a content presentation profile associated with the website from the plurality of content presentation profiles based on a format of the website or metadata of the website, wherein the content presentation profile is associated with the initial set of content presentation locations of the website; and
identifying the initial set of content presentation locations using the content presentation profile;
receiving an identity of a compliance ruleset that specifies a set of criteria that evaluate compliance of regulated content items with a set of constraints, wherein the set of constraints comprises static constraints that are applied to a set of variable inputs, and wherein the compliance ruleset comprises configuration parameters for configuring a set of […] models, wherein the configuration parameters control operation of the set of […] models at least by specifying a set of operations for the set of […] models to perform with respect to the compliance ruleset;
executing a compliance checker implemented using a set of […] models and based on the configuration parameters, wherein the configuration parameters specify a set of static instructions that instruct the set of […] models on operations to perform with respect to the compliance ruleset and, for each content presentation location of the initial set of content presentation locations within the website, a variable input comprising the regulated content item, and wherein the set of static instructions cause the accuracy of the compliance checker to satisfy an accuracy threshold;
determining a regulated content item associated with a content presentation location of the initial set of content presentation locations that was evaluated at an earlier time based on […] the regulated content item and omitting the content presentation location from the initial set of content presentation locations to obtain a set of content presentation locations;
for each content presentation location of the second set of content presentation locations within the website,
generating a prompt to the set of […] models, the prompt comprising the regulated content item associated with the content presentation location and the compliance ruleset;
processing the prompt using the compliance checker, wherein the compliance checker uses the set of […] models to verify compliance of the regulated content item based at least in part on the compliance ruleset; and
receiving a compliance determination dataset from the compliance checker that indicates whether the regulated content item passes one or more criteria within the compliance ruleset; and
outputting data for displaying a website compliance view based at least in part on the one or more compliance determination datasets generated for the second set of content presentation locations, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person's interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 1, and 16 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, and 16 recite the additional elements of a computing system comprising one or more hardware processors (Claims 1, and 16), machine learning models (Claims 1, and 16), a data store (Claim 1), a hash (Claim 1 and 16), and a memory (Claim 16), that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of a hash confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (cryptography). MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) 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. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
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 of a computing system comprising one or more hardware processors (Claims 1, and 16), machine learning models (Claims 1, and 16), a data store (Claim 1), a hash (Claim 1 and 16), and a memory (Claim 16), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of a hash merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (cryptography). 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 an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, and 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-15, and 17-25 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 16 as discussed above.
Claim(s) 2 & 13 merely describe(s) what is included in the first set of content presentation location. Claim(s) 3 & 19 merely describe(s) receiving data (content syndication feed). Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) generating a message. Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) the compliance ruleset. Claim(s) 6 & 22 merely describe(s) first regulated content item and its portions. Claim(s) 7 & 23 merely describe(s) what is included in the second portion of the first regulated content item. Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) an automatic routine. Claim(s) 10 & 11 merely describe(s) how the initial set of content presentations are identified and processed. Claim(s) 14 merely describe(s) a content presentation profile and its contents. Claim(s) 15 merely describe(s) an identification of the initial set of content presentation location. Claim(s) 17 merely describe(s) how the content presentation locations are identified, and what is included. Claim(s) 20 merely describes information included in the content syndication feed, a message, and a verification. Claim(s) 24 merely describes how the set of content presentation locations are identified. Therefore claims 2-8, 13-15, 17, and 19-24 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Dependent Claim(s) 9-12, 18, and 25 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, and 16. In addition, it recites the additional elements of machine learning models, and a large language model. The machine learning models, and large language model, are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15, and 17-25 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
The cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features of determining a regulated content item associated with a content presentation location of the initial set of content presentation locations that was evaluated at an earlier time based on a hash of the regulated content item and omitting the content presentation location from the initial set of content presentation locations to obtain a set of content presentation locations, in combination with the other claim limitations. After conducting an updated search, the closest art comprises:
Currier (US 10891393 B2) discloses determining whether the at least one website is compliant with one or more privacy requirements. Currier, however, is silent on a hash, and omitting the content presentation location from the initial set of content presentation locations to obtain a set of content presentation locations.
Qin (CN 102541882 A) discloses determining the selected navigation item, and inquiring the corresponding relation of the navigation item and determining the selected navigation item corresponding to said position information, and determining the current webpage comprises the position information in the appointed range of the web page content, and displaying the webpage content. Qin was cited in combination with Currier in the most recent office action. Qin fails to cure the deficiencies of Currier in combination.
Amar (US 11611590 B1) discloses a company's compliance or lack of compliance with a specific regulation or requirement contributes to, or could contribute to, the cybersecurity risk of an organization whose employees use that company's products or services to limit the risk to the organization. Amar was cited in combination with Currier and Qin in the most recent office action. Amar also fails to cure the deficiencies of Currier and Qin in combination.
Katsev (WO 2016178068 A1) discloses analyzing the web page elements of the two or more reference web pages to identify similarities and relationships among the web page elements, generating a set of test templates identifying at least a plurality of elements common to the two or more reference web pages and a set of test rules specifying at least logical relationships between web page elements of each reference web page, and verifying compliance of a test web page with the set of test template and the set of test rules. Katsev was cited in combination with Currier, Qin, and Amar in the most recent office action. Katsev also fails to cure the deficiencies of Currier, Qin, and Amar in combination. Therefore, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed render claims 1, and 16 allowable over the prior art. Claims 2-15, and 17-25 are also allowable over the prior art due to their dependencies on Claims 1, and 16.
A Non-Patent Literature search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim is analogous to Ex parte Desjardin, Decision on Request for Rehearing of Appeal No. 2024-000567, at page 8 the application on appeal indicating that the use of less storage capacity and a reduction in system complexity “constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ex parte Desjardin, Decision on Request for Rehearing of Appeal No. 2024-000567, the patent eligibility was due to a concrete improvement to the functioning of a machine-learning model, specifically a reduction in system complexity and an improvement in how the computer itself operated. In contrast, the present claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, processor, or other technology, rather they utilize generic computing components to perform data collection analysis, and presentation functions that merely implement an abstract idea on a computer. Applicant further argues that the features of claim 1 constitute an improvement to the claimed computing system such as improving compliance check accuracy, preventing LLM hallucinations, conserving or saving processing resources, and reducing the number of hardware processors to perform the claimed features. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the technological environment to which the claims are confined (a general purpose computer); put another way, the computer is implementing what it was programmed to implement. The computer did not cause the problem of which is claimed of content on a website to be out of compliance. Further, the need for determining compliance of content on a website using machine learning is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Looking at the limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The purported improvements are results-oriented statements of intended benefit, not evidence of a technological improvement. Merely performing an abstract idea process more efficiently using conventional computer components does not render the claims patent-eligible. In other words, the claims simply require the performance of the abstract idea of determining the compliance of website content on generic computer components using conventional computer activities.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 Rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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 at 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626