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
This action is response to the communication filed on October 31, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding art rejection filed on October 31, 2025 have been considered but are moot in the view of new ground of rejection. The argument regarding 101 rejection is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended claims are not directed to a judicial exception at least because any supposed abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The amended claims recite a combination of features that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, including at least a specific technical solution involving generation a visualization of a data processing pipeline.
Applicant argument is not persuasive. The additional limitation as recited in the claims do not integrate into a practical application as the additional limitations are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of accessing and receiving steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites access ingested data obtained from a plurality of external sources; receive a request from a user to delete a subset of data stored at one or more of the plurality of external sources, wherein the subset of data is associated with the user; receive account identifiers associated with the user; search the ingested data using the account identifiers to identify relevant data for deletion associated with the user and with the account identifiers; access metadata associated with the relevant data for deletion to determine locations of the plurality of external sources where the subset of data is stored; generate user interface data for rendering a user interface including a visualization of a data processing pipeline for processing the request to delete the subset of data, wherein the visualization of the data processing pipeline includes one or more nodes representing one or more steps in the data processing pipeline and one or more edges representing lineage between the one or more steps of the data processing pipeline; receive a confirmation to perform a deletion operation; and generate instructions to delete the subset of data stored at the one or more of the plurality of external sources responsive to the confirmation.
The claim recited the limitation of search ….., generate user interface …., and generate instructions ….. as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can identify data for deletion by reading the received data including visualization as recited and record those data on a paper (user interface) and provide instruction for deletion with the help physical aid (i.e. pen and paper). Hence, the searching and generating limitations are mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand.").
The claim recites five additional elements: access ingested data, receive a request, receive account identifiers, access metadata, and receive a confirmation. The accessing and receiving steps as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the detection step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of accessing and receiving steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of data retention and deletion. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the user interface includes an indication of a dataset including the subset of data before the deletion operation and an indication of the dataset after the deletion operation, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of data retention and deletion. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to modify a portion of the ingested data corresponding to the subset of data requested for deletion, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of data retention and deletion. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to validate whether the deletion operation persists in a subsequent data ingestion from the plurality of external sources, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of data retention and deletion. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the user interface includes a visualization of the instructions to delete the subset of data, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of data retention and deletion. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to receive the confirmation from the user via the user interface, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of data retention and deletion. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to receive the account identifiers from the user via the user interface, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of data retention and deletion. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the user interface includes a form for inputting the account identifiers, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of data retention and deletion. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the deletion operation is determined based on a set of pre-configured modification logic, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of data retention and deletion. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to perform an eligibility check before generating the instructions to delete the subset of data, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 11-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-10 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-10 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barday et al. (Pub. No. : US 20190215344 A1) in the view of Seif et al. (Pub. No. : US 20190384635 A1).
As to claim 1 Barday teaches a system comprising:
a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith; and one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions (paragraph [0009]: one or more processors, computer memory, and a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions. In various embodiments, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations) to cause the system to:
access ingested data obtained from a plurality of external sources (paragraphs [0190], [0199]: submitting a data subject access request and the system respond to data subject access requests and other requests related to collected, stored, and processed personal data. In particular embodiments, the centralized data repository may include one or more third party data repositories (e.g., one or more third party data repositories maintained on behalf of a particular entity that collects, stores, and/or processes personal data));
receive a request from a user to delete a subset of data stored at one or more of the plurality of external sources, wherein the subset of data is associated with the user (paragraph [0008]: in response to identifying the one or more pieces of personal data, taking one or more actions such as, for example: (1) deleting the one or more pieces of personal data from the data system; (2) modifying at least one of the one or more pieces of personal data and storing the modified at least one of the one or more pieces of personal data in the data system);
receive account identifiers associated with the user (paragraphs [0158]: The system may, for example, be configured to scan and identify one of more pieces of personal data such as: (1) name; (2) address; (3) telephone number; (4) e-mail address; (5) social security number; (6) information associated with one or more credit accounts (e.g., credit card numbers); (7) banking information; (8) location data; (9) internet search history; (10) non-credit account data; and/or (11) any other suitable personal information discussed herein. In particular embodiments, the system is configured to scan for a particular type of personal data (e.g., or one or more particular types of personal data));
search the ingested data using the account identifiers to identify relevant data for deletion associated with the user and with the account identifiers (paragraphs [0158], [0191]-[0192]: the system may prompt a user to provide information such as, for example: (1) what type of requestor the user is (e.g., employee, customer, etc.); (2) what the request involves (e.g., requesting info, opting out, deleting data, updating data, etc.); (3) first name; (4) last name; (5) email address; (6) telephone number; (7) home address; and/or (8) one or more details associated with the request);
access metadata associated with the relevant data for deletion to determine locations of the plurality of external sources where the subset of data is stored (paragraphs [0050], [0227]: the system is configured to store metadata in association with processed personal data and in response to determining the location of the data (which may be on multiple computing systems), automatically facilitate the deletion of the data subject's personal data from the various systems (e.g., by automatically assigning a plurality of tasks to delete data across multiple business systems to effectively delete the data subject's personal data from the systems);
generate user interface data for rendering a user interface including a visualization of a data processing pipeline for processing the request to delete the subset of data (paragraphs [0184]: receiving a data subject access request. In various embodiments, the system receives the request via a suitable web form, wherein the request may include a request to delete one or more pieces of personal data stored by the system regarding the requestor);
receive a confirmation to perform a deletion operation (paragraph [0226]: the system may be configured to confirm receipt of valid consent to collect, store, and/or process personal data); and
generate instructions to delete the subset of data stored at the one or more of the plurality of external sources responsive to the confirmation (paragraphs [0184]: the system receives the request via a suitable web form, wherein the request may include a request to delete one or more pieces of personal data stored by the system regarding the requestor).
Bardav does not explicitly disclose but Seif teaches wherein the visualization of the data processing pipeline includes one or more nodes representing one or more steps in the data processing pipeline and one or more edges representing lineage between the one or more steps of the data processing pipeline (paragraphs [0023], [0043]: The data processing pipeline may be represented graphically, for example, as a plurality of nodes interconnected by one or more directed edges. Each node may correspond to a data processing operation performed on the data traversing through the node. Meanwhile, the one or more directed edges may indicate a flow of data between the plurality of nodes).
It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bardav by adding above limitation as taught by Seif to customize an operator node in a graph representative of a data processing pipeline (Seif, paragraph [0003]).
As to claim 2 Barday together with Seif teaches a system according to claim 1. Barday teaches wherein the user interface includes an indication of a dataset including the subset of data before the deletion operation and an indication of the dataset after the deletion operation (paragraph [0188]).
As to claim 3 Barday together with Seif teaches a system according to claim 1. Barday teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to modify a portion of the ingested data corresponding to the subset of data requested for deletion (paragraph [0008]).
As to claim 4 Barday together with Seif teaches a system according to claim 1. Barday teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to validate whether the deletion operation persists in a subsequent data ingestion from the plurality of external sources (paragraph [0052]).
As to claim 5 Barday together with Seif teaches a system according to claim 1. Barday teaches wherein the user interface includes a visualization of the instructions to delete the subset of data (paragraph [0184]).
As to claim 6 Barday together with Seif teaches a system according to claim 1. Barday teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to receive the confirmation from the user via the user interface (paragraph [0226]).
As to claim 7 Barday together with Seif teaches a system according to claim 1. Barday teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to receive the account identifiers from the user via the user interface (paragraph [0158]).
As to claim 8 Barday together with Seif teaches a system according to claim 1. Barday teaches wherein the user interface includes a form for inputting the account identifiers (paragraph [0158]).
As to claim 9 Barday together with Seif teaches a system according to claim 1. Barday teaches wherein the deletion operation is determined based on a set of pre-configured modification logic (paragraph [0188]).
As to claim 10 Barday together with Seif teaches a system according to claim 1. Barday teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to perform an eligibility check before generating the instructions to delete the subset of data (paragraph [0188]).
As to claims 11-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-10 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-10 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169